Gaza’s ‘Phase Two’: The illusion of transition and the reality of control
Washington claims the war has entered a ‘second phase,’ but conditions in Gaza show no power shift, no end to violence, and no real sovereignty
By Mohammad al-Ayoubi | The Cradle | January 20, 2026
The announcement arrived wrapped in the familiar choreography of diplomacy. Carefully chosen language, optimistic briefings, and reassurances that the war on Gaza had reached a new stage, one that would ease suffering and open the door to political reordering.
According to Washington, “phase two” of the ceasefire agreement had begun, signaling a move away from annihilation toward stability, governance, and transition.
In Gaza, the reality was less abstract. Israeli drones continued to hover above neighborhoods already reduced to rubble, Rafah remained sealed, bodies still arrived at hospitals, and Israeli forces showed no sign of withdrawal.
Aid trickled in sporadically, reconstruction remained a distant promise, and the daily mechanics of siege carried on uninterrupted. Nothing that defines a genuine shift in conditions or authority had materially changed, except the vocabulary used to describe it.
The question raised by the US announcement is therefore not whether ‘phase two’ has begun, but whether it was ever intended to exist as anything more than a political abstraction.
Is this a real transition in the trajectory of the war, or another exercise in linguistic repackaging meant to stabilize Israel’s position without addressing the foundations of the conflict itself?
The historical record leaves little room for doubt. US involvement in Palestine has consistently revolved around managing the scale and visibility of violence, calibrating its intensity in ways that safeguard Israel’s strategic dominance while containing diplomatic fallout.
Read in this context, ‘phase two’ emerges as a political device rather than a substantive shift. It is a framework meant to absorb the aftermath of mass destruction, shield Israel from international isolation, and reorder Palestinian life under post-war conditions, all while leaving untouched the structures that made the war inevitable.
A declaration without enforcement
Ibrahim al-Madhoun, a Palestinian writer and political analyst close to Hamas, tells The Cradle that Washington’s announcement amounts to nothing more than “a political position rather than a genuine transition on the ground,” especially given Israel’s failure to comply even with the terms of the first phase.
Israeli forces continue to expand what Palestinians refer to as the ‘Yellow Line,’ a militarized buffer zone that now consumes much of Gaza’s territory. Rafah remains closed, essential goods are blocked, targeted killings continue, and no meaningful reconstruction effort has begun. The conditions that defined the war before the ceasefire remain largely intact beneath a layer of diplomatic messaging.
Hazem Qassem, Hamas’s official spokesperson, echoes this assessment, acknowledging that while the announcement appears positive in form, “what has happened so far is a media declaration that requires concrete steps on the ground.” He emphasizes that Israel has failed to meet even the benchmarks of phase one, making any talk of a second phase more aspirational than real.
In the logic of international relations, a political declaration without enforcement mechanisms is no declaration at all. The US, which possesses full capacity to pressure Israel, has once again chosen the role of “biased mediator” – or more accurately, a partner in re-engineering the war through less crude means.
Netanyahu’s moment of clarity
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement describing the move to the second phase of the Gaza agreement as “largely symbolic” cannot be read as a marginal opinion or personal estimate.
It is an official Israeli definition of the function of this phase. When Netanyahu makes such a statement immediately after Washington’s announcement, and in front of the families of captives, he makes it clear that Tel Aviv does not treat ‘phase two’ as a binding executive path, but as political and media cover, allowing it to manage time and pressure without offering substantive concessions.
More revealing still was Netanyahu’s dismissal of the proposed Palestinian governing committee as symbolic as well. The implication was unmistakable. Israel does not recognize any Palestinian administration, even one stripped of factional power and framed as technocratic, as a sovereign actor. At best, such bodies are temporary facades. At worst, they are obstacles to be bypassed or neutralized.
This position directly undermines Washington’s narrative of “phased transition.” Israel is not preparing to withdraw, hand over authority, or allow meaningful Palestinian governance to take root.
Instead, it is preserving the outer shell of an agreement while hollowing out its content, a strategy refined through decades of negotiations that maintained form while denying substance.
Seen in this light, the US announcement functions as crisis management rather than conflict resolution, while the Israeli response amounts to an admission that there is no intention to leave Gaza, empower Palestinians, or commit to a political timetable.
‘Phase two’ is designed to freeze escalation and manage fallout, not to dismantle the structures that made the war inevitable.
A first phase that never materialized
From the perspective of Palestinian factions, the premise of phase two is flawed because phase one never truly existed in practice.
Israel did not withdraw from the ‘Yellow Line,’ which now covers roughly 60 percent of Gaza’s land. It did not open the crossings, halt its killing campaign, or allow unrestricted aid. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 460 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire was announced, alongside over 1,100 violations, according to Hamas, including assassinations and incursions that continued even as the agreement was being celebrated diplomatically.
These figures alone dismantle the notion of transition.
Speaking to The Cradle, Mahfouz Manwar, a senior figure in Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), argues “talk of a second phase is premature so long as Israel has not been compelled to implement the first phase.”
What exists, he says, is an agreement that survives on paper but has collapsed on the ground, with the concept of ‘phases’ repurposed as a mechanism to legitimize continued occupation at a reduced political cost.
What a real transition would require
If ‘phase two’ had genuinely begun, its indicators would be unmistakable. Israeli forces would withdraw from occupied areas, Rafah would open fully and without political conditions, targeted killings would cease, and reconstruction materials would begin entering Gaza at scale.
None of this has occurred.
Instead, Israel continues to use Rafah as a tool of pressure, blocking any Palestinian sovereign presence, even in its most symbolic form. Authority remains firmly in Israeli hands, reshaped through security arrangements that leave the underlying power balance intact. ‘Phase two,’ as it currently stands, operates as a managed delay rather than a move toward implementation.
At the center of the ‘phase two’ narrative lies the proposal for a transitional Palestinian administration in Gaza, a question that should not be treated as a bureaucratic detail but as a core indicator of whether any real shift is underway.
According to Madhoun and Qassem, Hamas approached the administrative committee as a Palestinian necessity rather than a concession to external pressure. The movement facilitated its formation, they argue, in order to ease humanitarian suffering and remove the pretexts used to justify continued war.
The principle of such a committee was agreed upon more than a year ago with Egyptian mediation, and clear criteria were established, including local representation from Gaza, independence from the occupation, and professional rather than factional qualifications. Disagreements over specific names did arise, as Madhoun acknowledges, but some were resolved through revisions while others remain under discussion, a dynamic that Manwar describes as natural within a fragmented national context.
What is striking, however, is the absence of Fatah from the Cairo talks, reflecting a deeper structural crisis in the Palestinian political system, where authority is fragmented and accountability diffuse. The more pressing question is not whether consensus exists, but whether Israel will permit any Palestinian body to function with real authority. Thus far, the answer has been unequivocally negative.
Administration without sovereignty
The proposed committee, reportedly headed by a former deputy planning minister in the Palestinian Authority (PA), Ali Shaath, and composed of roughly 14 professionals from Gaza, has been presented as a step toward Palestinian self-administration. In reality, the environment in which it is expected to operate exposes the limits of that claim.
The backgrounds of its members have reportedly been vetted by the US, Israel, and Egypt, while its authority is tied to international oversight structures, and its freedom of movement remains subject to Israeli approval. This produces a familiar paradox: a Palestinian body tasked with administering a territory over which it exercises no control.
There is no authority over borders, airspace, or crossings, and not even autonomy over the movement of its own personnel. What emerges is not governance in any meaningful sense, but service provision under occupation, a structure designed to manage humanitarian fallout without possessing the political tools to address its causes.
Decision-making power remains external, particularly through international mechanisms overseeing reconstruction funding, reproducing a well-worn model in which local administrators operate beneath an internationalized center of control.
Hamas and the politics of withdrawal
One of the most consequential developments in this phase is Hamas’s declaration that it is prepared to relinquish administrative control of Gaza without exiting the national struggle. According to the movement’s leadership, this reflects a genuine effort to facilitate relief rather than a tactical maneuver.
By stepping back from civil governance, Hamas removes the primary Israeli-American justification for continued war. If the movement is no longer administering Gaza, the argument that military operations are necessary to dismantle its rule loses coherence. Yet history suggests that governance was never the real issue, and that Palestinian existence itself has always been treated as the fundamental problem.
Weapons and coercion
The attempt to link reconstruction to disarmament is widely viewed by Palestinian factions as a form of political blackmail. Both Hamas and PIJ reject the premise outright, arguing that it seeks to impose politically what Israel failed to achieve militarily.
Qassem states that Hamas is open to regulating weapons within a national framework, but not to surrendering them. Manwar highlights the contradiction at the heart of Israeli claims: if Israel insists it has already destroyed the resistance’s military capabilities, why does disarmament remain a central demand?
The answer lies not in security, but in symbolism. Weapons in Gaza are not merely arms, but markers of agency, and stripping them away would transform the territory from a space of resistance into one managed externally through security arrangements.
A ceasefire without an endpoint
There is little evidence that ‘phase two’ leads toward a permanent end to the war. What exists instead is a fragile pause, vulnerable to collapse, in which phases are used to reposition rather than resolve.
In its current form, ‘phase two’ risks becoming a form of undeclared trusteeship, a humanitarian administration without sovereignty, or a gradual erosion of resistance under sustained pressure.
None of these outcomes constitutes peace.
Egypt, Qatar, Turkiye, and the US are presented as guarantors of the agreement, yet even American officials concede that there has been no progress on an International Stabilization Force (ISF) and that reopening Rafah ultimately remains an Israeli decision.
This admission captures the essence of the crisis. A second phase cannot succeed so long as Israel retains veto power over every operational detail. Only sustained pressure, not diplomatic optimism, can convert an agreement from text into lived reality.
What is unfolding in Gaza points away from any genuine transition toward peace and toward a reshaping of control under new terms. ‘Phase two’ has evolved into a test of Palestinian factions, regional mediators, and the credibility of international guarantees alike.
It will either open the way to an unconditional end to the war and meaningful reconstruction, or take its place among the many agreements reduced to form without substance.
Gaza, which endured annihilation without surrender, will not be subdued by administrative committees or phased rhetoric. The struggle has expanded beyond territory and military confrontation. It is now a battle over who defines politics, who controls humanitarianism, and who ultimately holds the right to decide.
UNRWA under attack: Ben-Gvir directs demolition in al-Quds

Al Mayadeen | January 20, 2026
Israeli occupation authorities bulldozed buildings inside the headquarters of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) in eastern occupied al-Quds, as “Israel” intensifies restrictions on humanitarian organizations providing aid to Palestinians.
Local sources told the Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli troops, accompanied by bulldozers, stormed the UNRWA compound after sealing off surrounding streets and increasing their military presence. The forces then demolished structures inside the compound.
Later on Tuesday, Israeli occupation forces fired tear gas at a Palestinian trade school, marking a second incident targeting a UN facility in the same area.
Israeli officials present during the demolition
“Israel” has repeatedly accused UNRWA of pro-Palestine bias and alleged links to Hamas, without providing evidence, claims the agency has strongly denied.
“Israel’s” Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the demolition was carried out under a new “law” banning the organization.
Extremist Israeli Police Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said he accompanied crews to the headquarters, calling the demolition a “historic day”.
On his part, Israeli-imposed deputy mayor of occupied al-Quds Aryeh King referred to UNRWA as “Nazi” in a post on X.
“I promised that we would kick the Nazi enemy out of Jerusalem,” he wrote. “Now it’s happening: UNRWA is being kicked out of Jerusalem!”
UNRWA denounces ‘open defiance of international law’
UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini described the demolition as an “unprecedented attack” and “a new level of open & deliberate defiance of international law.”
“Like all UN Member States & countries committed to the international rule-based order, Israel is obliged to protect & respect the inviolability of UN premises,” he wrote in a post on X.
He added that similar measures could soon target other international organizations.
“There can be no exceptions. This must be a wake-up call,” Lazzarini stressed. “What happens today to UNRWA will happen tomorrow to any other international organization or diplomatic mission.”
UN demands immediate cessation of demolitions
On his part, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned “in the strongest terms” the Israeli occupation forces’ demolition of the UNRWA Sheikh Jarrah compound, spokesperson Farhan Haq said during a news conference.
Citing the inviolability and immunity of UN premises, Haq said, “The Secretary-General views as wholly unacceptable the continued escalatory actions against UNRWA, which are inconsistent with Israel’s clear obligations under international law, including under the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.”
“The Secretary-General urges the Government of Israel to immediately cease the demolition of the UNRWA Sheikh Jarrah compound, and to return and restore the compound and other UNRWA premises to the United Nations without delay,” he added.
Aid groups face widespread restrictions
The move comes amid international condemnation following “Israel’s” ban on dozens of international aid organizations providing life-saving assistance to Palestinians in Gaza.
“Israel” has lately revoked the operating licences of 37 aid groups, including Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and the Norwegian Refugee Council, citing non-compliance with new government regulations.
Under the new rules, international NGOs working in Gaza and the occupied West Bank must provide detailed information on staff members, funding sources, and operational activities.
Last week, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Israel” could face proceedings at the International Court of Justice if it does not repeal laws targeting UNRWA and return seized assets.
In a January 8 letter, Guterres said the UN could not remain indifferent to “actions taken by Israel, which are in direct contravention of the obligations of Israel under international law. They must be reversed without delay.”
Laws targeting UNRWA expanded
“Israel’s” parliament passed legislation in October 2024 banning UNRWA from operating in “Israel” and prohibiting Israeli officials from engaging with the agency. The law was amended last month to ban electricity and water supplies to UNRWA facilities.
Israeli authorities also occupied UNRWA’s offices in eastern occupied al-Quds last month.
UNRWA was established more than 70 years ago by the UN General Assembly to provide assistance to Palestinians forcibly displaced from their land.
New study shows that toxic gas can form in cows’ stomach when being fed Bovaer with certain feed
By Peter Imanuelsen | The Freedom Corner | January 19, 2026
There have been many reports lately of cows suddenly collapsing and becoming sick after being fed with Bovaer.
This caused the largest dairy producer in neighbouring Norway to pause the use of Bovaer.
Farmers have been in despair as their herd has been suffering after Denmark introduced new laws mandating methane reducing feed to cows to reduce climate emissions.
Now there is a new study from Denmark showing some very interesting and disturbing findings.
You can say that perhaps the ”conspiracy theorists” were right once again. I was one of the first to warn about Bovaer years ago.
After the reports of collapsing cows, SEGES innovation, a Danish agricultural research organization has conducted investigations into Bovaer and what they found is very alarming. You probably won’t read about this on the mainstream media, so I will share it with you here.
SEGES put out an online questionnaire where farmers could report problems with Bovaer.
Responses came in from around 39% of all milk supplying herds in Denmark. Shockingly, 434 out of 644 herds were reported to have REDUCED milk yield. That is a whopping 67.4% that had reduced milk yields.
This suggests that there is impaired rumen function in the cows.
410 herds reported digestive and metabolic disorders, including poisoning symptoms and fever.
According to SEGES innovation, giving Bovaer in combination with a feed that is high in sulfur, often from rapeseed products, was linked to increased reports of feeding and metabolic disorders in cows.
Bovaer inhibits methane production, that is in fact the whole point of Bovaer. But this increases the availability of hydrogen in the stomach of the cow. If the cow then has lots of sulfur from the feed containing rapeseed, this can cause hydrogen sulfide to form.
Hydrogen sulfide is a TOXIC gas and is dangerous for humans and animals.
This is what happens when you try and mess with what God created. The cows are getting unintended side effects because someone thought it was a good idea to remove the methane that is naturally produced in the cows’ stomach.
This reaction and creation of this toxic gas in the cows stomach is now being described as a possible explanation as to why cows are becoming sick after eating Bovaer.
SEGES is therefore recommending a pause in the use of Bovaer until autumn 2026 for cows eating feed with large portions of rapeseed, pending experiments being done at Aarhus university.
The War On Free Speech In Australia Is Getting Cartoonishly Absurd
By Caitlin Johnstone | January 17, 2026
A mentally disabled Australian woman is being prosecuted for antisemitic hate crimes after accidentally pocket-dialing a Jewish nutritionist, resulting in a blank voicemail which caused the nutritionist “immediate fear and nervousness” because she thought some of the background noises in the recording sounded a bit like gunshots.
We’re being told we need more of this. There’s “hate speech” legislation presently in the works to make this worse. Australia’s controversial Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill appears to be explicitly crafted to dramatically increase the scale, frequency and consequences of the exact sort of dynamics we’re seeing in this case, and to eradicate opposition to Israel throughout the nation.
This is how overextended Australia’s freakout over “antisemitism” already is. You can literally just be sitting there not saying or doing anything and still find yourself getting arrested and prosecuted for an antisemitic hate crime. They have the authority to do this presently, under the laws that already exist. The argument for this bill is that our present horrifyingly tyrannical and abusive system is insufficiently authoritarian and tyrannical, and that prosecutors need more power to police speech far more forcefully.
Australians are being asked to trust a system that would take a woman with an intellectual disability to prosecution in a court of law over an accidental butt-dial to a person of Jewish faith with the authority to send people to prison for years over their political speech. And this is happening after we just spent years watching Australian authorities roll out authoritarian measures to stomp out criticism of Israel and quash protests against an active genocide.
This is madness, and it needs to be brought to a screeching halt. Immediately. This entire country has lost its damn mind.
The Bondi attack isn’t the reason, it’s the excuse. All these laws being rolled out to stomp out criticism of Israel in Australia were sought for years before the shooting occurred.
Immediately after the attack last month I tweeted, “Not a lot of info about the Bondi shooting yet but it’s safe to assume it will be used as an excuse to target pro-Palestine activists and further outlaw criticism of Israel in Australia, as has been happening to a greater and greater extent in this country for the last two years.”
They could have proved me wrong, but instead they’ve spent this entire time proving me one hundred percent correct. The frenzied efforts to crush anti-genocide protests and silence speech that is critical of Israel and Zionism in these subsequent weeks has plainly established this.
There is no connection between pro-Palestine demonstrations and the Bondi attack. None. It had nothing to do with Palestinians, and it had nothing to do with anti-genocide demonstrations. It’s a completely made-up claim that Israel’s supporters have been circulating in Australian consciousness through sheer repetition. They’re just pretending to believe it’s true in order to promote the information interests of a genocidal apartheid state.
Israel’s supporters need to use propaganda, deception, censorship and oppression to promote their agendas, because it’s all they have. They don’t have truth. They don’t have arguments. They don’t have morality. All they have is brute force. They are shoving support for Israel and its atrocities down our throats whether we like it or not, and if we refuse what we’re being force-fed they will punish us. That’s the only tool in their toolbox.
This needs to be ferociously opposed. The more Israel and its supporters work to assault our right to oppose their abuses, the more aggressively we need to oppose them. We are no longer fighting against war and genocide in the middle east, we are fighting against an assault on our own civil rights. It’s personal now. They’re coming for us directly.
Palestinian prisoners in 2025: Shocking figures and escalating violations
Palestinian Information Center – January 17, 2026
RAMALLAH – The Asra Media Office has revealed alarming data regarding the situation of Palestinian prisoners up to the end of 2025, noting that their number has reached approximately 9,300 prisoners, nearly half of whom are held in detention without charge or trial amid an unprecedented expansion in the use of administrative detention and arbitrary classifications, including the so-called “unlawful combatant.”
In a report issued today, Saturday, the office explained that the Israeli occupation authorities have escalated their repressive policies by targeting women, children, journalists, and medical personnel, alongside systematic violations inside prisons. These violations include physical and psychological torture, deliberate medical neglect, starvation, detention under inhumane conditions, sexual assaults, the denial of visits, restrictions on lawyers’ work, and obstruction of the tasks of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
According to official data, since 1967 and up to the end of 2025, around 323 prisoners have died inside Israeli prisons, including 86 prisoners since 2023 and 32 during 2025 alone. The occupation authorities continue to withhold the bodies of 94 prisoners, constituting a grave violation of international humanitarian law, amid documented cases of direct killing, torture, and medical neglect leading to death.
The Asra Media Office noted that by mid-January 2026, the number of martyrs of the prisoners’ movement had risen to 324, including 87 since the war of genocide, with the continued withholding of 95 bodies under a policy of collective punishment prohibited under international law.
Despite the release of 3,745 prisoners during exchange deals in 2025, the Office confirmed that the occupation continued its policies of deportation and re-arrest, alongside the enactment of dangerous repressive legislation, including calls for the execution of prisoners, the extension of administrative detention periods, the revocation of citizenship, and the targeting of human rights institutions working on prisoners’ issues.
The Office called on the international community to assume its legal and moral responsibilities and to take immediate action to hold the occupation authorities accountable for these crimes, ensure the urgent release of sick prisoners, children, and women, and impose independent international monitoring over Israeli prisons.
Hamas: Israeli minister’s boasting over Gaza’s destruction an open admission of genocide

Palestinian Information Center – January 17, 2026
GAZA – Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem said on Saturday that the Israeli war minister’s public boasting about the destruction of the Gaza Strip, and his congratulation to the soldiers for criminal acts, amounts to an explicit and unprecedented admission of genocide.
Qassem said the remarks, made in light of revelations by Western media about the scale of devastation in Gaza, constitute further proof of a level of contempt for international law and humanitarian norms unseen in modern history.
He added that what has unfolded in the Gaza Strip, genocide and ethnic cleansing, constitutes a full-fledged crime under international law, now accompanied by a clear and public confession from those responsible. This, he said, necessitates genuine accountability for the entire Israeli occupation system behind these crimes.
Israel launched a genocide in the Gaza Strip in October 2023 that continued for more than two years, resulting in the killing of more than 71,000 Palestinians and the wounding of over 171,000 others. The assault caused massive destruction to approximately 90 percent of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, with the United Nations estimating reconstruction costs at around $70bn.
Figures behind massacre of starving Gazans now shaping US Gaza plan
Press TV – January 16, 2026
Many of the figures now being elevated as key figures in Washington’s proposed postwar administration for Gaza were architects of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-Israeli aid operation under which Palestinian civilians were repeatedly killed while attempting to access food.
According to the Financial Times, individuals shaping the new Gaza executive committee were directly involved in designing and promoting GHF, a scheme that operated for months inside Israeli-controlled areas of the strip.
GHF was presented as a humanitarian workaround after Israel restricted UN and NGO aid access. In practice, it forced starving Palestinians to travel through militarized corridors to tightly controlled distribution hubs, where limited food was handed out under the watch of Israeli troops and US contractors.
Gaza health officials reported that hundreds of Palestinians were killed along access routes to these sites, while some estimates place the death toll at close to 2,000 over six months.
Israeli authorities denied deliberate targeting and disputed casualty figures, even as repeated shootings were documented near GHF hubs.
Despite the collapse of the foundation in November, the same network behind it is now shaping Gaza’s future governance.
The planned executive committee, operating under a Trump-led “Board of Peace,” is being influenced by Roman Gofman, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief military adviser and a nominee to head the Mossad; US-Israeli venture capitalist Michael Eisenberg; US-Israeli policymaker Aryeh Lightstone; and Israeli tech entrepreneur Liran Tancman, who has links to Israeli intelligence.
All four were involved in establishing or promoting GHF.
The executive committee is expected to include Palestinian technocrats tasked with replacing Hamas in civil administration under the second phase of a US-brokered ceasefire.
Eighteen Palestinian figures have reportedly received invitations, with former Palestinian Authority planning official Ali Shaath designated to head the body and retired intelligence officer Mohammed Nisman expected to oversee security.
Meetings are scheduled to take place in Cairo, while the committee is set to operate under direct US supervision.
The push comes as Israel continues to violate the ceasefire. Since the truce was announced in October, Israeli forces have killed more than 440 Palestinians and injured over 1,200, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
Israeli troops were supposed to withdraw to designated lines and halt attacks during the first phase of the agreement, but instead have expanded their presence, destroyed thousands of buildings, and constructed new military outposts inside Gaza.
Humanitarian commitments under the ceasefire have also gone unmet. Of the 57,000 aid trucks stipulated in the agreement, fewer than 25,000 have been allowed into Gaza, according to the Government Media Office.
Promised increases to 4,200 trucks per week have not materialized, while Israel has announced plans to bar dozens of international NGOs from operating in the strip. The blockade remains in place, exacerbating food insecurity, medical shortages, and displacement.
Former UN envoy and Bulgarian defense minister Nickolay Mladenov is set to be named “high representative” for Gaza, overseeing a 14-member Palestinian technocratic committee responsible for day-to-day governance.
The broader “Board of Peace,” expected to include Trump and 15 international leaders, has been delayed, reportedly due to regional tensions and Trump’s threats of military action against Iran.
The US team driving Gaza policy answers directly to Jared Kushner, with much of the planning conducted outside formal diplomatic and military coordination channels.
Meanwhile, Israeli media have reported that the army has drawn up plans for a renewed assault on Gaza aimed at seizing additional territory, even as Washington announces the start of the ceasefire’s second phase.
Hamas and other Palestinian factions, meeting in Cairo, have focused discussions on reopening crossings, ensuring aid entry, and securing Israeli withdrawal, while Israeli artillery and gunfire continue to target multiple areas across the strip.
Scott Ritter says he was ‘de-banked’
RT | January 15, 2026
Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, RT contributor and critic of American foreign policy, has said he has been “de-banked” and that US federal authorities are likely behind his bank’s decision.
Ritter served as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s. He opposed the 2003 US invasion, arguing that Saddam Hussein’s government did not possess weapons of mass destruction, contrary to Washington’s now-debunked claims. He later became an independent journalist and political commentator and has cooperated with international media, including RT.
On Thursday, Ritter wrote on his website that “today my banking institution of 26 years, Citizens Bank, declared that they were ending their banking relationship with me.”
“My accounts were zeroed out without explanation,” he added.
Ritter said the move may have been a unilateral de-risking decision by Citizens Bank, but that it “does not preclude federal involvement.”
He noted that the “Northern District of New York empaneled a Grand Jury targeting me back in August 2024,” on suspicion of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. He believes federal authorities had obtained all his banking information through Grand Jury subpoenas.
“What I am beginning to suspect is that someone in the FBI, fully armed with the totality of my banking transactions… “tipped off” Citizen’s Bank about “suspicious activity” that resulted in Citizen’s Bank issuing a SAR [Suspicious Activity Report],” Ritter wrote.
Ritter said donations he received and subsequent cash withdrawals before his three trips to Russia in 2025 may have triggered the move. He added that he had carried $10,000 in cash each trip because Russia is “disconnected from the Western digital economy.”
According to Ritter, the “purpose of “de-banking” is to harass a targeted individual,” even in the absence of evidence pointing to any criminal activity.
In June 2024, Ritter’s passport was seized by the US government when he attempted to board a flight to attend the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
Several months later, FBI agents searched Ritter’s home, which he described as an “act of intimidation” for his journalistic work. Ritter said the agents accused him of working “on behalf of the Russian government,” an allegation he has denied.
Australia’s New Hate Speech Bill Is Reckless, Contradictory, and Repressive
Australia’s hate law rewrites justice into a guessing game where imagined offense can cost you five years of your life
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 13, 2026
On January 12, Australia’s Attorney-General Michelle Rowland stepped to the podium and announced what she called “the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”
The government plans to push its Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 through Parliament on January 20, turning Australia’s speech laws into something that reads more like a psychological test than a criminal code.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here (and the memorandum here.)
The same week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was praising Iranians “standing up for their human rights,” his government was preparing to criminalize speech at home even when no one’s rights or feelings had actually been touched.
The bill’s centerpiece is a new racial vilification offense. It bans “publicly promoting or inciting hatred” based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, with penalties of up to five years in prison.
The measure’s core novelty is what it removes: proof of harm.
It’s “immaterial,” the draft says, whether “the conduct actually results in hatred” or whether anyone “actually” feels intimidated or fears harassment.
The courts will instead consider what a hypothetical “reasonable” member of the targeted group would feel, even if no such person exists in the case.
Prosecutors, the explanatory note clarifies, “would not be required to prove” any real fear at all.
The message: you can go to prison for causing theoretical discomfort in a theoretical person.
Rowland’s bill doesn’t stop at the town square or the street corner. It explicitly defines a “public place” to include any form of electronic communication, including social media, blogs, livestreams, recordings, and content posted from private property if the public can see it.
In other words, the living room webcam and the backyard podcast are now public arenas. A joke, a meme, or an overheard rant could be weighed for its impact on an imaginary “reasonable person” who never existed.
That five-year penalty isn’t for causing harm; it’s for crossing a line no one can quite locate.
The one solid shield in this maze of liability is religion. The offense “does not apply to conduct that consists only of directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.”
Everyone else is left to improvise a defense under the general “good faith” clauses.
The memorandum calls this exemption “peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant,” which is legalese for: you better prove your sermon was holy enough.
The government has built a speech hierarchy, placing priests and imams on the top shelf and comedians and columnists in the discount bin.
The Combatting Hate bill reads like the product of a government that wants to be applauded for standing up to bigotry but can’t resist the lure of control.
It recasts expression as a form of potential violence, with guilt determined not by actions or consequences but by how a hypothetical observer might feel.
The Combatting Hate bill takes the already broad category of “prohibited hate symbols” and turns it into a legal booby trap.
Under the amendments, anyone accused of displaying one must now prove their own innocence. The idea of innocent until proven guilty would now be reversed.
The government boasts that the law “removes the current requirement…for the prosecution to disprove the existence of a legitimate purpose” and instead “reverses the burden of proof to require the defendant to provide evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility of the existence of a legitimate purpose for display.”
In plain language, the accused must demonstrate that they had a permitted purpose, such as education or historical context, before prosecutors even have to make their case.
Police can demand the removal of online material and seize physical items.
The likely effect is predictable: artists, academics, and journalists will think twice before touching any material that could be misinterpreted.
The courtroom will not even need to convict. The process itself becomes the punishment.
The bill goes further with a new power to designate “prohibited hate groups.” The Australian Federal Police Minister can create these listings without hearings or due process. The statute leaves no ambiguity: “The AFP Minister is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in deciding whether or not the AFP Minister is satisfied for the purposes of this section.”
This power does not stop at the Australian border. The listings can reach backward in time and across borders. The bill allows an organization to be blacklisted if it “has advocated (whether or not in Australia)” conduct that qualifies as hateful, even if that conduct “occurred before subsection (1) commences.”
That means a person can be prosecuted for speech or association that was entirely legal when it occurred. The past is no refuge, and geography offers no escape.
Once a group lands on the list, the penalties multiply. According to the government’s own factsheet, “The maximum penalties for these offences range from 7 to 15 years imprisonment.”
Membership can mean seven years. Providing support, training, recruitment, or funding can mean fifteen. The memorandum quietly adds that the Director-General of Security’s advisory role in the process is also exempt from procedural fairness.
The bill presents itself as protection, but is written in language that is surprisingly reckless and shamelessly authoritarian.
It reads like the product of a government comfortable with punishing ideas instead of actions. The text removes the need for evidence of harm, rewrites fear as a legal standard, and shifts the burden of innocence onto the accused.
Its tone is revealing. The clauses are direct and unapologetic, describing censorship powers and reversed burdens as if they were routine administrative steps.
There is no hesitation or recognition of limits, only the steady assumption that control is an acceptable substitute for trust.
This legislation normalizes the management of thought through regulation. The state positions itself as the final arbiter of acceptable speech, using fear as both the metric and the motive.
Once written into law, that kind of authority rarely asks permission to grow.
We must act before Palestinian hostages are executed in the world’s worst prisons

Demonstration held in Gaza in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. [photo by AA]
By Adnan Hmidan | MEMO | January 14, 2026
Warnings are no longer enough. Condemnation alone no longer carries any weight. We are standing at a moment that will be remembered, not for what was said, but for what was done. Today, in Israeli prisons, Palestinians are not simply being detained. They are being pushed, step by step, towards a reality where death itself is written into law, where execution is no longer a crime but a procedure, no longer an exception but a policy.
This is no longer just about harsh detention conditions or even about the routine violation of prisoners’ rights. The danger now runs deeper. What is unfolding is a systematic attempt to reshape justice to fit the needs of occupation, to turn trials into formalities before punishment and to reduce the law to a tool of retaliation rather than protection. New legislation, exceptional legal routes and an openly hostile political discourse now speak of execution not with embarrassment but with confidence, pride even. In such a climate, every legal fig leaf has fallen away and every moral mask has been removed.
Human rights organisations across the world have issued clear warnings about this direction, especially the push to establish “special” courts for Palestinians alone. These courts do not merely breach the principle of equality before the law; they destroy the very idea of justice. They operate outside internationally recognised standards and function in a space dominated by security priorities rather than judicial independence. When a person stands before a court designed especially and exclusively for him or her, not to offer fairness, but to ensure conviction, justice ceases to exist. It is a performance where the ending is known before the first word is spoken.
The threat does not end in the courtroom. It extends into a growing policy of denying release altogether, cutting off any realistic hope of freedom through exchange, parole, or genuine judicial review. What we are witnessing is a dangerous shift from punishment with limits to punishment without end, from imprisonment as a legal measure to imprisonment as a permanent political sentence. This approach deepens arbitrary detention, entrenches isolation and strips detainees of the most basic forms of human connection, turning prisons into spaces beyond accountability and beyond compassion.
Most disturbing of all is the open preparation for the death penalty, particularly when it is framed in a way that is mandatory, discriminatory, and aimed squarely at Palestinians. This represents a grave assault on the right to life and raises the terrifying possibility of executions carried out after trials shaped more by politics than by justice. Any attempt to apply such punishment retroactively, or to enforce it selectively, shatters the principle of legality and transforms the law into an instrument of elimination rather than protection. This is not a distant fear. It is a path already being cleared, step by step, in front of a world that seems increasingly willing to look away.
It is from this sense of urgency that the Red Ribbons Campaign was born, not as a slogan, nor as a gesture, but as a human alarm. A warning sounded before prison cells become execution chambers, and before silence becomes complicity. The colour red was chosen for a reason beyond the aesthetic; it signifies danger, the colour of blood and the colour of the final signal when words are no longer enough. It is the colour of freedom when it is taken by force and of injustice when it is endured in silence.
The campaign calls for a coordinated digital action beginning on the evening of Thursday 15th of January, under two clear hashtags: #الحرية_للأسرى and #FreePalHostages. The aim is to restore the human face of those held in Israeli prisons, not as statistics and certainly not as abstract political figures, but as doctors who once healed others, women whose lives were interrupted and children who should have been in classrooms, not in prison cells. This is about breaking a narrative that allows the suffering of one side to be visible while the pain of the other is deliberately and forcefully made invisible.
The action then moves from screens to streets on Saturday the 31st of January, with posters carrying the faces of Palestinian hostages placed in public spaces. This is not meant as theatre, but rather to remember while people are still alive, refusing to await their death to set a memorial. It is a way of saying: these lives matter now, not later.
But this movement will only have meaning if it belongs to people on the street and not just to organisations, movements or campaigns. It will only succeed if it becomes personal. No special permit is required to demonstrate care. No official mandate is needed to act. A photo can be placed in your local neighbourhood, with red ribbons tied around it; a picture taken, and then shared. In doing so, you become part of something larger, not a campaign of noise, but a community of conscience.
This is not a political disagreement that can be postponed. It is a moral test that demands an answer now. Will we act before executions take place, or will we limit ourselves to words of sorrow afterwards? Will we raise our voices while there is still time, or will we save them for statements that come too late?
The Red Ribbons Campaign may not be the final chapter in this struggle, but it could be one of the last chances to prevent a darker one from being written. History is not kind to those who watch from a distance. Blood, once spilled cannot be taken up. And justice, when abandoned at the moment of danger, becomes nothing more than a story we tell ourselves later.
We must act now, not because we seek attention, but because we refuse to be silent witnesses to the execution of Palestinian hostages in the world’s worst prisons.
Knesset advances bill mandating death by hanging for Palestinian prisoners

The Cradle | January 13, 2026
Israeli lawmakers are advancing a bill that would introduce executions by hanging for Palestinians convicted under military law, according to a report by Haaretz published on 13 January.
The report detailed the proposal and internal objections following its approval in a first Knesset reading in November.
The legislation, formally titled the “death penalty for terrorists” bill, was initiated by Israeli lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech of the Otzma Yehudit party and approved by a vote of 39-16.
It would allow Israeli military courts to impose death sentences without a prosecutor’s request and by a simple majority rather than unanimous verdicts.
Under the proposal, executions would be carried out by hanging and completed within 90 days of a final ruling, following a judge-signed order and under the supervision of the Israel Prison Service.
A designated prison officer would perform the execution, appointed directly by the prison service commissioner.
The bill mandates near-total isolation for prisoners sentenced to death, with visits restricted to authorized personnel and legal consultations limited to visual contact via video calls only, with no possibility of sentence reduction once imposed.
Prison officers and the state would be granted full civil and criminal immunity for carrying out executions.
While execution details would be published on the prison service website, the Freedom of Information Law would not apply, and those involved would remain anonymous.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir celebrated the vote by handing out sweets and wearing a gold noose pin.
He later said the noose represented “one of the options,” adding that “the electric chair” and “lethal injection” were also possibilities.
Legal advisors to the Knesset’s National Security Committee warned that the bill raises serious constitutional and legal concerns, saying it would apply only to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, creating a separate legal regime and risking violations of international treaties.
Human rights groups condemned the proposal, with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel saying it would grant the state power to carry out “the intentional taking of a human life,” calling it another step toward a “racist legal system” built on selective and oppressive enforcement against Palestinians.
President Karol Nawrocki Vetoes Poland’s EU Digital Services Act Enforcement Bill, Citing Censorship Concerns
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 12, 2026
President Karol Nawrocki has blocked a government proposal meant to enforce the European Union’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), in Poland, arguing that it would turn state regulators into online censors.
His decision halts one of Warsaw’s most significant attempts to bring national law in line with EU digital rules.
“As president, I cannot sign a bill that effectively amounts to administrative censorship,” Nawrocki stated. “A situation in which a government official decides what is permitted on the Internet is reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.”
The bill, approved by parliament in November, was presented as a way to protect users from online abuse and falsehoods.
It gave two regulatory bodies, the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) and the National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT), the power to order the removal or blocking of digital content judged to contain criminal threats, child exploitation, hate speech, incitement to suicide, or copyright violations.
The plan also allowed complaints to originate from a wide range of sources, including the police, prosecutors, border guards, or tax authorities. Content authors would have been notified and granted a two-week window to object before any blocking took effect.
Supporters of the proposal pointed to new appeal mechanisms for users who felt wronged by platform decisions, calling the bill a step toward transparency and accountability.
Nawrocki, however, saw the measure differently.
In a detailed explanation posted on the Chancellery’s website, as reported by Notes From Poland, he wrote that the safeguards were superficial: “Instead of real judicial review, an absurd solution has been introduced: an objection to an official’s decision, which citizens must file within 14 days.” He accepted that “the internet poses many threats, especially to children,” but insisted that the government’s draft was “indefensible and simply harmful.”
“The proposed solutions create a system in which ordinary Poles will have to fight the bureaucracy to defend their right to express their opinions. This is unacceptable,” he said, adding that “the state is supposed to guarantee freedom, not restrict it.”
The government, which has often clashed with the president, condemned the veto. Digital affairs minister Krzysztof Gawkowski said Nawrocki’s action would weaken online protection efforts.
Gawkowski argued that the rejected bill would have strengthened user rights, guarded families from “hate” and “misinformation,” and countered the spread of foreign propaganda.
The Polish Media Council also voiced disappointment, warning that the veto “will hinder the fight against online disinformation, especially at a time when almost every day brings new lies from across the eastern border.”
By rejecting the bill, Poland now remains one of several EU countries yet to implement the DSA, exposing it to possible sanctions from Brussels. The European Commission referred Poland and four others to the Court of Justice of the European Union last May over non-compliance.
