Iran shoots down Israeli spy drone over Hormozgan province
Press TV – May 24, 2026
Iranian air defense forces have shot down an Israeli “Orbiter” reconnaissance drone over the southern province of Hormozgan, according to military sources from the country’s southeastern air defense command.
The drone, described as being used for espionage and surveillance, was intercepted and destroyed after entering the operational airspace under the protection of Iran’s southern air defense network on Sunday.
Officials said the UAV was targeted by a specialized defense system whose technical specifications have not yet been disclosed.
Military authorities based in Bandar Abbas stated that the system used in the operation is capable of detecting and engaging radar-evading drones and that no stealth UAV would be able to penetrate the airspace stretching from the Persian Gulf and its islands to southern and southeastern Iran.
The wreckage of the destroyed drone was later recovered with the assistance of maritime border police units operating in Hormozgan Province.
The interception comes at a time of increasing scrutiny over the vulnerability of advanced Western and American unmanned aerial systems in regional conflicts.
A recent Bloomberg report detailing the loss of multiple advanced US drones during the war against Iran has drawn attention to the growing challenges facing technology-driven aerial warfare.
Among the systems highlighted was the MQ-9 Reaper, long regarded as one of the symbols of American military and technological superiority due to its surveillance, tracking, and precision-strike capabilities in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan and Iraq to Syria.
Analysts say the significance of such incidents extends beyond financial losses. The downing of advanced drones increasingly carries political and strategic implications, raising broader questions about the effectiveness of modern airpower and the sustainability of prolonged military engagements.
In the United States, criticism has gradually intensified over the objectives and outcomes of US aggression against Iran.
Analysts say that if Washington, despite possessing some of the world’s most advanced military technologies, is unable to achieve its strategic goals, the justification for continuing this war becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
Col Doug Macgregor: US-Iran Deal, Israel’s Nightmare
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 24, 2026
Fars debunks NYT claims ‘Israel’ was exempted from US-Iran agreement
Al Mayadeen | May 24, 2026
Claims that President Donald Trump exempted “Israel” from commitments under a potential agreement with Iran appear to be baseless, Fars News Agency revealed, based on a review of the final draft text.
Fars reported that The New York Times had alleged “Israel” was granted an exemption from the obligations outlined in the emerging draft MoU with Tehran.
However, an examination of the explicit wording of the prospective agreement shows the opposite. According to the draft text, should the agreement be finalized, the United States and its allies would be bound not to launch any form of aggression against Iran or its allies.
In return, Iran has committed that neither it nor its allies would carry out preemptive military strikes against the United States and its allies.
Consequently, the media outlet’s claim that “Israel’s” regime is exempt from any commitments toward Iran directly contradicts the explicit provisions of the final agreement, rendering the assertion false and unfounded.
US and Iran reportedly near agreement
This closely follows a report by Axios citing a US official familiar with the talks, stating that the United States and Iran are nearing a draft agreement that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, ease pressure on global oil markets, and launch a new round of talks over Tehran’s nuclear program.
The proposed deal, which mediators and President Donald Trump have suggested could be announced as early as Sunday, would establish a 60-day ceasefire framework that could later be extended by mutual consent. However, officials cautioned that talks remain ongoing and the agreement could still collapse before being finalized.
According to the US official, both sides would sign a memorandum of understanding under which Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, remove naval mines deployed in the waterway, and allow unrestricted maritime traffic to resume. In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports and issue sanctions waivers enabling Tehran to freely export oil.
The official acknowledged that the arrangement would provide a major boost to Iran’s economy, but argued that it would also stabilize global energy markets by restoring oil flows through one of the world’s most strategically important shipping lanes.
Taking Iran’s lead, a global resistance front is needed against US-backed Israeli war machine
By Dina Y. Sulaeman | Press TV | May 24, 2026
The Israeli navy does not ask for your passport before opening fire. They don’t care whether your country’s government has diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv or not. They also don’t care if your country is secretly starting to soften its attitude toward Israel for the sake of a more comfortable relationship.
They capture, detain, injure, even kill – then wait for the world to look away.
The “Global Sumud Flotilla,” a global humanitarian activist movement to send food to Gaza by sea, has proven one thing indisputably: any country that sends its citizens on humanitarian missions to Gaza must accept insults from Israel.
South Korea, Greece, France, Brazil, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Sweden all have good relations with Israel. But their citizens are still detained by Israel in international waters.
Similar missions have been carried out for over a decade, and they always end the same way: activists are arrested or even killed. In the 2010 Mavi Marmara tragedy, for instance, ten Turkish activists were killed by regime forces, yet no meaningful accountability ever followed.
The pattern is very clear. Israel operates on the assumption that the world will condemn and then forget. And so far, that assumption has proven to be true, at least until recently.
No “right diplomatic tone”
Indonesia’s experience is both interesting and painful. In recent years, Jakarta has shown signs of change in its approach to the Palestinian issue. In fact, the President of Indonesia once issued a statement, “peace can only come if everyone recognizes, respects, and guarantees the security of Israel.”
Indonesia even joined the Board of Peace formed by Trump, of which there is Israel as a member, while the official representative of the Palestinian Authority was not accepted.
The tone of Indonesia’s diplomacy has changed, from a principled confrontation to a more cautious and accommodating approach.
And what does Indonesia get in return? Four Indonesian soldiers who were members of UNIFIL were killed by Israeli forces in Lebanon. Most recently, five Indonesian citizens who joined the Global Sumud Flotilla were held hostage by Israel in international waters.
Israel has sent its message that accommodation does not produce security. Israel reads diplomatic leniency not as goodwill, but as weakness and as a green light to go further.
The economics of genocide: Who finances aggression?
To understand why Israel acts with impunity as it does now, we must look at the support architecture that allows impunity to take place, and that architecture is primarily economic.
The United States provides about $3.8 billion in annual military aid to Israel, plus an emergency aid package that made total fund transfers increase much larger during the Gaza genocide. But military aid is only the most visible layer.
Israel is supported by an arms supply chain by American arms manufacturers such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Elbit Systems, and L3 Technologies that provide bombs, drones, and surveillance technology used in Gaza. There is financial exposure from BlackRock, Vanguard, and major Western banks that have significant stakes in Israeli arms companies and bonds that finance their genocidal aggressions from Gaza to Beirut to Tehran.
There is technological support from Amazon Web Services and Google that provides cloud infrastructure for the Israeli military and intelligence through “Project Nimbus”, despite major protests from their own employees.
Some companies are proven to operate in illegal Israeli settlements or support Israeli military recruitment, but remain free to operate in the Global South market.
There are notorious militias that carry out genocide in Sudan, with arms supplies from Israel through the hands of the United Arab Emirates, in order to control the gold mines. And more.
They all form a system of financial immunity to a colonial project and that system works through the daily consumption choices of billions of people around the world.
The Israeli-American axis is not just a bilateral alliance. It is a system that was designed to maintain a certain global order, in which some lives are deemed worthy of protection while others are deemed to be sacrificeable.
Urgent need to form a global resistance front
Here, we need to review the global situation more comprehensively. Iran’s resistance and that of the axis of resistance against the US and Israel have led to a marked decline in US power.
The bullying carried out by the US and Israel has had a global impact. It’s time we talk about a global resistance front. The world needs to come together to harness all the legitimate instruments at the disposal of sovereign states and civil society to make Israel’s impunity costly.
The instrument is actually available. What has been lacking so far is the political will to use it simultaneously and on a large scale. For example, every member state of the Rome Statute is obliged to execute an ICC arrest warrant and Netanyahu’s arrest warrant already exists.
The genocide lawsuit brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a historic intervention that needs more supporters. More countries should join, file amicus briefs, or at least express official support. In this way, legal isolation works.
On the economic front, countries should stop procurement contracts with companies that supply dual-use weapons or technology to Israel, remove Israeli military bonds from sovereign wealth fund portfolios, and implement BDS principles as state policy, not just the aspirations of civil society.
Currently, more than 140 countries have recognized Palestine. Supposedly, this should not stop as empty symbolism. Any recognition should be used as a basis for a real change in the position of Palestinian international law. If Palestine is officially admitted as a member state of the United Nations, it has the right to build up a military and receive military assistance from countries when it is attacked by Israel (Article 51 of the UN Charter).
Boycotts of Israel from sporting events, music competitions, and others also need to be done. Because Israel is so dependent on international legitimacy, that’s where its vulnerability lies.
What Gaza needs is no longer just an expression of sympathy or verbal condemnation. What is needed is a front of countries and world societies that together decide that the cost of silence is much more expensive than the cost of resistance.
Iran has carried out its duties in the military arena against the US and Israel. Other countries need to show real progress on various fronts because Israel can only be stopped if it is really pressured from multiple directions, simultaneously, with real consequences.
Dina Y. Sulaeman is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia
Warmongers in meltdown as Trump heralds Iran deal
In essence, this agreement brings the situation to where it was supposed to be following the announcement of the original ceasefire
By Trita Parsi | May 23, 2026
I wrote yesterday that the United States and Iran were on the verge of an agreement. Trump appeared to confirm as much a few hours ago with an unusually disciplined Truth Social post — grammatically coherent, diplomatically measured, and notably devoid of his customary theatrics or ritual humiliation of the opposing side.
That restraint matters. Unlike his earlier proclamations of imaginary breakthroughs, this statement carried the tone of a serious diplomatic signal rather than political indiscipline. Its timing, moreover, appeared disconnected from market considerations or domestic spectacle. My own sources in Tehran likewise confirm that a major breakthrough has been reached, though it remains contingent on final approval — precisely as Trump indicated.
So what does all of this mean? What do we actually know about the contours of the agreement? How significant was the role played by regional actors in securing the breakthrough, and what explains Europe’s near-total irrelevance in the process? If this arrangement is merely a Memorandum of Understanding, where do the principal vulnerabilities lie as negotiations enter a second phase?
Moreover, can Trump successfully sell the deal at home? What steps can — and likely will — Israel take to sabotage the agreement? And if a final deal is secured, how profound would Israel’s strategic defeat be?
Let me try to address these questions one by one.
First of all, the full details remain unclear. But according to reporting by Amwaj.media —much of which I have independently corroborated — the agreement entails a comprehensive cessation of hostilities, including in Lebanon; the gradual release of Iran’s frozen assets; and an end to America’s “blockade of the blockade” in the Strait of Hormuz.
Maritime traffic through the Strait would resume under joint Iranian and Omani oversight. Once these measures take effect, the parties would have an additional 30 days to negotiate a final agreement. That second-stage accord is expected to address both the nuclear issue and the long-term status of the Strait.
Significant progress, however, already appears to have been made on the nuclear file, and, as I understand it, broad principles for its resolution have largely been agreed upon.
In essence, this agreement restores the situation to where it was always supposed to be following the announcement of the original ceasefire. From the outset, the ceasefire was intended to be regional in scope and to include Lebanon. There was never supposed to be a “blockade of the blockade” — an absurd scheme concocted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies that only served to undermine America’s strategic position.
Nor was commercial traffic through the Strait meant to remain disrupted. The genuinely new elements are limited sanctions relief for Tehran and a formal commitment to resolve the nuclear issue within the next 30 days.
Yet while reaching this point is undeniably significant, there is still no real deal until a final agreement is secured. And the 30-day window, though short, nevertheless offers ample opportunity for spoilers on all sides to sabotage the process.
The regional buy-in — and the fact that Trump announced the agreement only after speaking with a wide array of key regional leaders, including those of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain, in addition to a separate call with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu — is highly significant. This regional anchoring affords Trump a degree of political insulation in Washington. Faced with inevitable accusations from hawks that the agreement amounts to defeat or that it betrays Israel, he can point to broad regional support as evidence that America’s principal partners in the Middle East prefer diplomacy to escalation.
Indeed, compared to President Obama’s 2015 nuclear agreement, the regional engagement surrounding Trump’s deal is objectively deeper, broader, and more politically consequential. Obama’s agreement was negotiated despite resistance from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE; Trump’s appears to be taking shape with active regional backing. Europe’s near-total absence from the process is nevertheless striking — though hardly problematic. By this point, Europe’s diplomatic irrelevance in major Middle Eastern diplomacy has become so normalized that its exclusion barely registers.
Judging by the public panic now emanating from Washington’s war hawks and pro-Israel circles, however, the next 30 days are likely to be politically brutal for Trump. FDD is already openly attacking him. AIPAC is amplifying lawmakers denouncing the agreement. An adviser to the former Crown Prince of Iran has accused Trump of “total surrender.” Many of the same allies who enthusiastically applauded Trump’s decision to initiate the war are now turning on him for choosing diplomacy over permanent escalation.
Senior Israeli politicians, however, may choose a more cautious approach. Rather than confronting Trump directly, they are likely to let their proxies in Washington wage the public battle on their behalf.
Israeli elections are approaching, and Trump remains deeply popular among Israeli voters, while Netanyahu has thus far failed to convert the popularity of the Iran war into a decisive electoral advantage. A direct public clash with Trump over the agreement could therefore prove politically dangerous for Netanyahu. Trump, if provoked, could inflict substantial damage simply by signaling support for one of Netanyahu’s challengers.
Trump may have hinted at this dynamic a few days ago when he — seemingly out of nowhere — told reporters that he enjoys a “99% approval rating” in Israel and could run for prime minister there himself. On the surface, it sounded like another episode of characteristic Trumpian bravado. But in context, it may well have been a pointed warning to Netanyahu and Israel’s political establishment that Trump can damage them far more than they can damage him.
There should be little doubt, however, that if a final agreement is reached — and any lasting agreement will almost certainly require substantial, if not total, sanctions relief for Iran — it would constitute a devastating strategic defeat for Tel Aviv.
Israel’s two wars have, paradoxically, strengthened Iran’s deterrence posture, exposed Israel’s inability to confront Iran without overwhelming American military backing, and inflicted incalculable damage on America’s global standing and aura of military supremacy.
Indeed, the cumulative effect may be so severe that the pursuit of uncontested American global primacy is no longer a realistic option. At the same time, support for Israel within the United States has eroded dramatically across nearly every demographic group except older Republican voters.
Most importantly, sanctions relief would liberate Iran’s economy from decades of constriction and gradually shift the regional balance of power away from Israel and its vision of a “Greater Israel.” For precisely that reason, Israel will almost certainly do everything within its power — behind the scenes — to sabotage the agreement before it becomes irreversible.
But Israel is not the only threat to the deal. Both Washington and Tehran will have to exercise extraordinary discipline to ensure that their competing narratives of victory do not strengthen the hardline opposition camp in the other country. Throughout the negotiations, Trump has shown remarkably little sensitivity to how his inflammatory social media posts complicate Tehran’s ability to compromise. Iran must now avoid making the same mistake. Public triumphalism in Tehran could easily undermine Trump’s political capacity to deliver the agreement domestically.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s recent tweet comparing the outcome of Trump’s war to the failed Roman attempts to subjugate the Sassanidian Persian Empire is a case in point. Whatever its domestic appeal in Iran, such rhetoric risks hardening opposition in Washington at precisely the moment when restraint and strategic ambiguity are most needed.
At the end of the day, for the Phase II negotiations to succeed — and for any agreement to prove durable — both sides must be able to claim victory.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Over 50 countries continued to arm Israel during genocide of Palestinians in Gaza: Report
The Cradle | May 23, 2026
An Al-Jazeera investigation published on 23 May revealed that military-grade products from at least 51 countries and self-governing territories kept entering Israel even after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a provisional ruling over the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
In January 2024, the UN’s top court ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza. By then, Israel’s brutal bombing of Gaza had killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children.
However, countries across the globe continued to provide weapons and military assistance to the Israeli military, the Al-Jazeera report found.
Using Israeli Tax Authority (ITA) import data, customs records, and freedom of information requests, the Al-Jazeera investigation found the military-related goods were shipped to Israel from countries across Europe, Asia, North America, and South America, including from many that have signed the genocide convention.
In some cases, the military supplies originated from countries that had publicly imposed arms embargoes on Israel or had at least partially suspended arms supplies to the country.
According to the ITA data, Israeli arms imports increased after the ICJ ruling, in particular munitions imports.
The five biggest military suppliers to Israel—namely the US, India, Romania, Taiwan, and the Czech Republic—all boosted their shipments of military equipment to Tel Aviv following the ruling.
ITA data showed that 2,603 consignments of military-related goods valued at $885 million were sent to Israel between October 2023 and October 2025. Of those, $805 million worth came after the January 2024 ruling.
The consignments included ammunition, explosive munitions, weapons parts, and armored vehicle components.
According to Stephen Humphreys, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, there was “ample evidence that countries arming Israel may be complicit in international crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
“The most recent ‘ceasefire’ did not change this,” stated Gerhard Kemp, a professor of criminal law at the University of the West of England.
Since the ceasefire reached in October 2025, Israel has continued killing Palestinian civilians in Gaza and creating conditions of life that could destroy the group in whole or in part, Kemp said.
This indicates that states still have an obligation to stop supporting Israel’s war on Palestinians in Gaza, which has now killed at least 72,000 people. Tens of thousands more remain buried under the rubble of buildings Israel has bombed.
“Some states have a very narrow understanding of the duty to prevent genocide and are waiting for a judicial determination that there is a genocide in Gaza,” Kemp said. “But the ICJ will likely take several years to make such a determination. The better view is to look at domestic legal obligations … and international legal obligations and legal tools triggered by available evidence.”
Though the ICJ has not issued its final ruling, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory published a report in September 2025 concluding that Israel “committed a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.”
The UN report asserts that “states are obliged to take steps to ensure the prevention of conduct that may amount to an act of genocide … including the transfer of weapons that are used or likely to be used by Israel to commit genocidal acts.”
British bases in Cyprus face renewed scrutiny amid war on Iran
Al Mayadeen | May 23, 2023
The war on Iran has reignited political tensions in Cyprus over the continued presence of British military bases on the island, with critics describing them as a lasting symbol of colonial domination and a direct threat to Cypriot security.
The debate intensified after a drone struck the British Akrotiri base in southern Cyprus in March, causing limited material damage but triggering renewed scrutiny over London’s military role on the strategically located island.
In the days that followed, British and Greek fighter jets intercepted additional projectiles reportedly heading toward Cyprus, while several European states deployed naval assets to the eastern Mediterranean amid fears of regional escalation linked to the US-Israeli aggression on Iran.
According to Cypriot and Lebanese media reports, Cyprus’s intelligence chief, Tasos Tzionis, later allegedly established contacts with the Lebanese Resistance to obtain assurances that no further attacks would target the island, amid concerns that British military activity could drag Cyprus deeper into the regional confrontation.
British military presence described as colonial legacy
Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has publicly criticized Britain’s handling of the situation, warning that ambiguity surrounding the role of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia bases effectively turned Cyprus into a target during the confrontation.
Speaking in Brussels earlier this year, Christodoulides described the British bases as a “colonial legacy,” stressing the need for a broader discussion with London once regional tensions due to US and Israeli hostilities subside.
The Cypriot government reportedly lacks oversight over many military activities conducted inside the British-controlled zones, including the transfer of military equipment and logistical operations connected to Western regional interventions.
Diplomatic sources cited in the report said London “does whatever it wants” inside the bases, which have long served as key hubs for British and US military operations across West Asia.
Strategic role of Cyprus in Western military operations
Located roughly 150 kilometers from the coasts of Syria and Lebanon and around 350 kilometers from Gaza, Cyprus occupies a central position in the eastern Mediterranean and has increasingly served as a forward operating platform for Western military and intelligence activity.
Akrotiri has reportedly been used in logistical support operations tied to “Israel”, as well as in broader US and British regional military deployments.
The Dhekelia base also hosts extensive surveillance infrastructure, including radar and signal interception systems used in operations stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Researchers and political analysts in Cyprus argue that the continued British presence undermines the island’s sovereignty and complicates efforts to resolve the decades-long division of Cyprus between the Turkish-occupied north and the internationally recognized south.
Calls grow for decolonization and sovereignty
The British-controlled territories are not conventional foreign military bases governed through bilateral agreements. Instead, they remain sovereign British overseas territories retained by London when Cyprus gained independence from British colonial rule in 1960.
Together, Akrotiri and Dhekelia cover roughly 3% of Cyprus’ territory and include civilian communities inhabited by around 11,000 Cypriots.
Critics argue that the arrangement represents an incomplete decolonization process imposed on Cyprus as a condition for independence.
The issue has gained renewed relevance following international legal disputes over Britain’s control of the Chagos Islands, where London agreed to return sovereignty to Mauritius while retaining long-term military access to Diego Garcia, a major Anglo-American military base.
Cypriot officials are now reportedly studying similar legal and diplomatic pathways as pressure grows domestically to challenge Britain’s continued military presence on the island.
Germany’s allegations over attacks on Jewish targets follow ‘worn-out cliches’: Iran embassy
Press TV – May 23, 2026
Iran’s Embassy in Berlin says German prosecutors’ claims about Tehran’s alleged involvement in attacks on Jewish figures are “unfounded” and follow “worn-out clichés.”
In a statement posted on X on Saturday, the Iranian embassy said security is “a necessary and respectable matter” in every country, including both Iran and Germany.
However, it said that such claims against Tehran were made “on orders from Iran’s enemies,” adding that the repetition of “worn-out clichés” merely leads to the discrediting of the legal institutions of the accusing side.
The embassy further stated that if the protection of Jewish institutions and sites linked to Abrahamic religions is considered a universally accepted principle, then “the military attack by the Israeli regime in April 2026 on the Rafi’-Nia Synagogue in Tehran should also be perceived and condemned with the same sensitivity.”
The latest development came after German federal prosecutors announced criminal charges against a Danish national and an Afghan national accused of involvement in an alleged plot targeting prominent Jewish leaders in Germany.
According to prosecutors, the Danish suspect, identified as Ali S. under German privacy laws, is accused of working for the intelligence service of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) and maintaining close ties with the Quds Force.
Prosecutors claimed he was tasked in early 2025 with gathering information on Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, and Volker Beck, chairman of the German-Israeli Society, as well as two Jewish grocery stores in Berlin.
German prosecutors alleged that the surveillance activities were intended to facilitate the planning of murder and arson attacks in Germany.
German and Danish authorities had previously announced in July last year that a Danish national was arrested in Denmark on suspicion of spying for Iran by collecting information on Jewish sites and individuals in Berlin.
France criminalizing pro‑Palestine speech for ‘antisemitism’: Op-Ed
Al Mayadeen | May 22, 2026
French authorities have systematically silenced and criminalised pro-Palestinian solidarity under the guise of combating antisemitism, columnist Rokhaya Diallo writes in The Guardian, warning that a now‑shelved government bill aimed at punishing “indirect incitement” and “denial of a state” would have made it impossible to criticise “Israel” without risking legal sanctions.
Diallo notes that tensions in France over how to respond to a rise in antisemitism have been running high. A government‑backed bill introduced in 2024 by Caroline Yadan, a member of the National Assembly, was intended to counter “new forms of antisemitism.” However, its wording quickly veered toward a different objective: curbing the ability to criticise “Israel.”
“It must be possible to denounce the many crimes – extensively documented – committed by Israel, and to do so repeatedly without risking sanctions,” Diallo writes. “Freedom of expression in France allows individuals to voice any form of sentiment towards any country as long as there is no incitement to violence.”
Bill would have criminalised ‘indirect incitement’ and ‘denial of a state’
The Yadan bill proposed widening the existing offence of “glorifying terrorism” so that “indirect incitement” could be punished. It also introduced a new offence penalising the act of “inciting the destruction or denial of a state.”
Diallo argues that such a prohibition would run counter to the fundamental right to decolonization.
“Under the proposed legal framework, what would become of the right to question France’s own borders?” she asks, noting that France’s overseas departments are former colonies where independence movements have not disappeared.
A petition opposing the bill gathered a record 700,000 signatures. Rights bodies warned of the dangerously illiberal trajectory of the proposal. Five UN special rapporteurs issued an open letter expressing concern that the bill threatened “the exercise of protected rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including media freedom.”
Rima Hassan arrested, charged with ‘glorifying terrorism’
Diallo points to the case of French‑Palestinian MEP Rima Hassan of the left‑wing France Unbowed party, a prominent voice for Palestinian liberation. Hassan was arrested last month, taken into police custody and questioned for “glorifying terrorism.” Her alleged offence was a post on X quoting Kozo Okamoto, a member of a Japanese group that carried out a 1972 attack at Tel Aviv’s Ben‑Gurion airport.
News of her detention leaked as she was being questioned, accompanied by false claims that synthetic drugs had been found among her personal effects. The drug probe was later dropped, but only after days of negative media coverage.
It then emerged that Hassan’s phone had been under police surveillance from the beginning of the year without her knowledge. She will be tried in July and says she intends to refer the matter to an independent UN rapporteur and to the European Parliament.
Pattern of structural criminalisation of pro‑Palestinian activism
Diallo argues that the Yadan proposals should be seen as part of a broader pattern of structural criminalisation of pro‑Palestinian activism. After October 7, 2023, the French interior minister attempted to ban Palestinian solidarity demonstrations. University students who mobilised against the Yadan bill faced violent police repression. Prosecutions for alleged glorifying terrorism have multiplied since 2023, targeting influencers, athletes, trade union activists, and even members of parliament.
“The disproportionate response to pro‑Palestinian activism over what human rights groups have called a genocide raises questions about the lengths deployed, apparently to restrict a form of expression that is essential in a democracy,” Diallo writes.
While the Yadan bill is dead, she concludes, its provisions should be seen within a broader dynamic: one that seeks systematically to conflate anti‑Zionism with antisemitism and narrow the space for any pro‑Palestinian discourse.
IDF Militants Mass Raped And Tortured Global Sumud Flotilla Activists
The Dissident | May 22, 2026
Israel has mass raped and tortured detained activists with the Sumud Flotilla, who were attempting to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza, multiple victims have revealed.
On Tuesday, Israel kidnapped “430 people onboard 50 ships in international waters”.
Israel’s National Security Minister Ben Gvir released a video showcasing Israeli abuse of the detainees, including by forcing them to kneel while the Israeli national anthem played.
Democracy Now noted , “The video shows dozens of men and women kneeling in rows, with their foreheads to the ground and their hands zip-tied behind their backs at the port in Ashdod”.
Now, released activists from around the world have detailed mass rape, sexual abuse, and torture that Israeli forces unleashed on them while in detention.
A Press release from the Global Sumud Flotilla documented that, “Participants from the Global Sumud Flotilla, now in Istanbul, have begun providing harrowing testimony about widespread abuse, assault and torture: rubber bullets fired at close range, tasers to the face and upper body, stun grenades thrown into groups of detainees, stress positions held for hours under permanent bright light, hijabs (Muslim religious headcovers) forcibly removed, as well as various forms of sexual violence including: humiliating strip searches, sexual taunting, groping and pulling of genitals, and multiple accounts of rape.”
It added, “Some of the most horrifying accounts centre on a single vessel that participants call the ‘torture boat.’ This specific israeli naval vessel with a makeshift prison constructed of barbed wire and metal shipping containers became the primary site of intense violence following the interception; this reflects a small fraction of the patterns of systemic violence and sexual abuse against the Palestinian people at the hands of the israeli regime for decades.”
The activist organization has documented “At least 15 cases of sexual assaults, including rape” along with activists “shot with rubber bullets at close range” and “tens of people’s bones broken”.
Adrien Jouan, one activist with Global Sumud Flotilla, showed evidence of brutal torture, with severe bruising all over his body.
Another activist on Instagram live showcased severe bruising on his leg.

Released Brazilian activist Thiago Ávila revealed that , “there is no easy way to say it, but I have to say it, people got raped at the Global Sumud Flotilla. These monstrous soldiers raped our participants. It was not one, not two, not three, it’s many cases of sexual violence against our participants on the prison boat on the way to the port of Ashdod, where they got once again beaten up, many people with broken ribs, many people with broken bones in the arms, the collar bone, the ribs”.
Independent journalist Alex Colston, who was part of the Sumud Flotilla, revealed , “I just got out of Israeli prison … I saw people shot point blank with rubber bullets, I myself, I can’t feel my hands because they are all scarred up because they would take the cuffs and they would yank my hand over and over again. When I would be tied or cuffed, they would step on my cuffs. They kicked me in the ribs more times than I can count. I passed out at least one time. … even if you plead for them to stop … Israeli guards were getting obvious pleasure from hurting us as much as they could”.
Another participant in the flotilla , testifying to the torture she went through, said:
Handcuffs on my hands and feet. Dragged me. When I couldn’t walk, they dragged me on the ground.
They hit us. Hurt all of us a lot. Handcuffs so tight my hands lost feeling
They laughed all the time. Super sadistic.
Took off my shirt. Took pictures. Mistreated us all night long
Another activist testified that , “I had my hands zip-tied behind my back for so long and it was so tight I almost started vomiting, they slammed my head into a table several times and degraded me as I was strip-searched. They had me in handcuffs for 19 hours to the point my skin had begun to swell around them.”
Australian activist Juliet Lamont revealed , “We had people who were tasered in the face. People were syringed with unknown sedatives. I was put down, cable tied. They put so much water under me for an hour that I thought I was going to drown. I was sexually assaulted in this kind of torture chamber. And five men were bashing me and smashing my face”.
Italian economist, Luca Poggi, who was with the Flotilla activists revealed that “We were stripped, thrown to the ground, kicked. Many of us were Tasered, some were sexually assaulted, and some were denied access to a lawyer”.
Another German activist with serious injuries revealed that , “Israel beat her daily”.
The barbaric torture of the Sumud Flotilla activists is just another example of the brutal torture, sexual violence, and rape that Israeli forces unleash on Palestinian detainees daily.
‘Board of Peace’ plan accused of turning Gaza disarmament into Israeli land grab
MEMO | May 22, 2026
A proposed roadmap for Gaza has been condemned as an attempt to give Israel through diplomacy what it failed to achieve through more than two years of genocide: the disarmament of Hamas and other Palestinian factions, without guaranteeing a full Israeli withdrawal from the besieged enclave.
The plan, circulated by Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s high representative for Gaza, comes despite Israel’s repeated violations of the ceasefire and its failure to complete even the first phase of the agreement. Critics say Washington and Tel Aviv are now trying to force Palestinians into surrendering their weapons while Israel expands its military control inside Gaza, including along the so-called Yellow Line.
However, critics say the roadmap demands Palestinian disarmament while failing to guarantee Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza. Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada warned that the proposal could allow Israel to retain around 18 per cent of the Strip, including some of Gaza’s most fertile agricultural land, even after weapons and militias are removed.
The Arabic text of the roadmap states that Israeli forces would withdraw in phases only after verified progress in the “identification, restriction and collection” of weapons. Even in the final phase, Israel would withdraw “except for a security perimeter” until Gaza is deemed secure from any renewed threat. The plan does not define the size of this perimeter, raising fears that Israel could turn a temporary security zone into a permanent occupation.
Those concerns are reinforced by Israel’s conduct since the ceasefire. Israel has repeatedly violated the truce, continued attacks and failed to meet its own obligations during the first-stage, while still demanding that Hamas proceed with disarmament. Hamas has rejected the Board of Peace’s framing, arguing that it ignores Israeli violations and unfairly demands disarmament while Israel remains inside Gaza. Hamas insists that the question of arms must be linked to Israel’s withdrawal from the territory.
Mladenov himself has warned the UN Security Council that Gaza’s current division risks becoming permanent, with more than two million Palestinians crowded into less than half of the Strip while Israel maintains troops in around 60 per cent of Gaza.
The roadmap places the entire transition under an Implementation Verification Committee, a body tasked with deciding whether each stage of the plan has been completed before the next stage can begin. However, critics warn that the mechanism could leave the entire process effectively subject to Israeli approval.
According to the text, the committee would be established by the high representative for Gaza and include representatives of the guarantors, the International Stabilisation Force and the Peace Council.
In practice, critics say this gives Israel and its US-backed allies sweeping control over the pace and outcome of the process. Movement from one phase to the next would not be automatic. It would depend on the committee confirming that the previous stage had been completed, including the collection of weapons, dismantling of military infrastructure and restoration of security conditions acceptable under the plan.
The roadmap also states that Israel’s withdrawal would be phased and tied directly to verified progress in the process of “identifying, restricting and collecting” weapons. This means Israel would not be required to leave Gaza first. Instead, Palestinians would be asked to disarm while Israeli forces remain inside the enclave, with further withdrawal dependent on outside verification.
Even the final phase does not guarantee a complete Israeli withdrawal. The text says Israeli forces would leave Gaza except for a “security perimeter”, where they would remain until Gaza is deemed secure from any renewed threat. The roadmap does not define the size of this perimeter or set a firm deadline for Israel to leave it.

