Israel is phasing out the use of the detention camp of Sde Teiman in Israel’s Negev desert, a state attorney told Israel’s Supreme Court on Wednesday during a first-ever hearing about the facility where hundreds of Palestinian detainees from Gaza have allegedly been held under conditions of extreme abuse.

State attorney Aner Helman told the court that 700 inmates had been moved to Ofer military facility in the occupied West Bank, with another 500 set to be transferred in the weeks to come. Around 200 detainees will remain in Sde Teiman, said Helman, who added that the state would provide an update on their status within three days.

Last week, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi said the military launched a probe into the allegations of mistreatment at Sde Teiman, as well as at Anatot and Ofer, two other military detention camps for Palestinians from Gaza. The committee tasked with examining the conditions of Palestinian detainees from Gaza is set to submit its recommendations to Halevi this month.

According to the accounts, the camp some 18 miles from the Gaza frontier is split into two parts: enclosures holding scores of detainees from Gaza, and a field hospital where wounded detainees are blindfolded, strapped to their beds, wearing diapers and fed through straws.

In a May 20 response to a petition led by the rights group Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), the Israeli government said it is set to “reduce the number of inmates held in military facilities in general and the facility of Sde Teiman in particular, with the intention that this facility will be used as a reception, interrogation and initial sorting facility, for keeping prisoners for short periods only.”

“Detainees are handcuffed based on their risk level and health status. Incidents of unlawful handcuffing are not known to the authorities.”

The IDF did not directly deny accounts of people being stripped of their clothing or held in diapers. Instead, the Israeli military said that the detainees are given back their clothing once the IDF has determined that they pose no security risk.

Russia will increase the number of military instructors in Burkina Faso, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday during a trip to the West African nation.

“Russian instructors are working here, and their number will increase; at the same time, we are training members of the armed forces and law enforcement agencies of Burkina Faso in the Russian Federation,” Lavrov said in the capital city of Ouagadougou. “Here, Russian instructors are working; their number will increase.”

Russia furthermore intends to supply Burkina Faso with military products to strengthen the country’s defense capability, he said.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry on Wednesday posted a photo of Lavrov in Ouagadougou, noting that he had been received by acting President Ibrahim Traoré. Lavrov was accompanied on the trip by Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yevkurov.

Burkina Faso is currently under military rule after a junta staged a coup d’état in July 2022. Its junta, headed by Traoré, has said it is prioritizing building up security amid an ongoing and deadly internal conflict.

Violence-related deaths in Burkina Faso doubled last year, according to the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC).

So far in 2024, hundreds of civilians have already been killed in attacks this year, including around 170 in three villages in March, and approximately 30 in separate mosque and church attacks in February.

Engulfed in violence, Burkina Faso has been named the world’s most neglected displacement crisis for the second year, by the NRC. In 2024, 6.3 million people in the country will need humanitarian assistance, the aid organization said, with over two million people internally displaced.

US officials have warned for years now that both Russia and China are working to build influence in Africa. In 2019, the former head of US Africa Command, Gen. Thomas Waldhauser also said that Russia was using mercenaries and arms sales to gain access to natural resources in Africa.

Isolated from much of the world due to its invasion of Ukraine, Russia appears to be renewing overtures in the continent. In early March of this year, Africa Command again warned Congress that Russia was aggressively working to expand its footing in Africa, and that several countries were “at the tipping point” of falling under its influence.

In his comments this week, Lavrov also thanked Burkinabe leaders for their “effective assistance in resolving issues that allowed us to resume the activities of our embassy in Ouagadougou.”

“We are implementing a program to resume the activities of Russian diplomatic missions in Africa. Burkina Faso was the first country to do this quickly and effectively,” he said.

Ukrainian forces claimed Monday that they had successfully hit a Russian S-300 missile system using Western-supplied weapons inside Russian territory.

“It burns beautifully. It’s a Russian S-300. On Russian territory. The first days after permission to use Western weapons on enemy territory,” Ukrainian government minister Iryna Vereshchuk posted on Facebook alongside a picture purporting to show the strike.

This comes just days after US President Joe Biden gave Ukraine permission to carry out limited strikes using US weapons in Russian territory around Kharkiv, after several European nations had removed restrictions on how the weapons can be used.

It is unclear if the weapons used in the strike described by Vereshchuk were US-supplied.

Ukraine had for months pleaded with Washington to allow it to strike targets on Russian soil with US weapons, as Moscow launched a brutal aerial and ground assault on Kharkiv, safe in the knowledge that its troops could retreat back to Russian soil to regroup and its weapons depots could not be targeted with Western arms.

The permission granted by the US was both groundbreaking and bold, but tentative and highly conditional. Ukraine can only hit targets around Kharkiv, and the US is standing firm in not allowing Ukraine to use the most formidable munition it has been given to fire into Russia: the long-range missiles known as ATACMS that can hit targets 300 kilometers (nearly 200 miles) away.

Instead, Ukraine can only use shorter-range missiles known as GMLRS, which have a range of around 70 kilometers (around 40 miles).

While the removal of this taboo appears to mark a new chapter in the war, Russia has already experienced Ukrainian strikes with Western weapons on territory to which it lays claim.

Ukraine has frequently targeted occupied Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, using “Storm Shadow” missiles provided by the United Kingdom.

Ukraine also launched strikes on Kharkiv and Kherson in late 2022, as it sought to liberate the regions occupied by Russia in the early weeks of the war.

Then as now, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials rattled the nuclear saber in an attempt to deter Western support. Before Biden gave Kyiv the green light, Putin said the decision could lead to “serious consequences,” particularly for “small and densely populated countries.”

The US joined several other European countries, including the UK, France and Germany, in removing this particular restriction on how Ukraine can use the weapons it has been given.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has praised Biden’s decision to allow some strikes in Russian territory as a “step forward” that will help his forces defend the embattled Kharkiv region.

Any tourist wandering through the glitzy lobby of Singapore’s Shangri-La Hotel this weekend would have stumbled on a rather bizarre scene.

Military officers from around the world thronged the halls of the luxury hotel, their shoulders dripping with gold braids and epaulets, complicated colored bars lined up on the chests of their dress uniforms like some martial game of Tetris.

Every few minutes a defense minister strode purposely through the mix, surrounded by a phalanx of aides and escorts.

This gathering is an annual spectacle that to the uninitiated might seem surreal. But the topics being discussed here are deadly serious.

The annual Shangri-La Dialogue is one of the few places in the world where you can watch warriors who spend their careers preparing for armed conflict, engaged in polite, carefully-moderated debate.

The stakes this year could hardly be higher.

War rages in both the Middle East and Europe. Meanwhile China’s increasingly assertive moves has much of the Asia-Pacific on edge.

The Singapore summit brought key players together.

Where else would you have the President of the Philippines, a nation whichdo has seen its vessels increasingly targeted by Chinese coast guard ships in the disputed South China Sea, deliver a keynote address on the same stage that, two days later, Beijing’s new Defense Minister makes his debut appearance?

There was even a surprise appearance from Ukraine’s embattled president Volodymyr Zelensky – and a first face-to-face meeting between US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and his Chinese counterpart Adm Dong Jun.

Given its location in the city-state of Singapore, events in Asia – and in particular China’s behavior in the region – stalked the conference.

In his keynote speech, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. issued a stark warning about the ongoing confrontations between Philippine and China Coast Guard vessels in a contested part of the South China Sea.

“If a Filipino citizen is killed by a willful act,” he said, “that is I think, very, very close to what we define as an act of war.”

Two days later, China’s Adm Dong fired back from the same stage, accusing the Philippines of “blackmail” in the maritime dispute.

“There is a limit to our restraint,” said Admiral Dong Jun.

“I saw that as a threat,” said Dewi Fortuna Anwar, a research professor at Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Center who has been attending the Shangri-La Dialogue since its founding twenty-one years ago.

“In decades past, the Chinese only came in a small number and they were extremely quiet,” she said.  “Now they’re very self confident…they intervene in all the sessions.”

The open nature of the Shangri-La Dialogue provides delegates with a unique opportunity to ask blunt questions of speakers.

After his speech on Sunday, China’s Dong received many questions from audience members on Beijing’s increased threats towards self-governing Taiwan as well as its disputed claims in the South China Sea, and he replied in unapologetic terms.

The “separatists” in Taiwan’s newly-elected government would be “nailed to the pillar of shame in history,” he said.

But equally, Chinese military officers also used Q&A sessions at other key moments to make their views known.

Senior Colonel Yanzhong Cao of China’s People’s Liberation Army asked US Secretary of Defense asked US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin whether the US was trying to build a NATO-like alliance in the Asia-Pacific region, adding the claim “the eastward expansion of NATO has led to the Ukraine crisis.”

“I respectfully disagree,” Austin replied, the audience in the ballroom then erupting into a rare burst of applause.

“The Ukraine crisis obviously was caused because Mr. Putin made a decision to unlawfully invade his neighbor,” Austin continued. “This was brought on because of a decision by Mr. Putin.”

Later that day, Ukrainian leader Zelensky got a borderline rock star welcome when he made a surprise appearance at the conference, dressed in his trademark fatigues and black t-shirt.

“We stand with you,” Ng Eng Hen, Singapore’s minister of defense, later said to Zelensky.

But the large contingent of Chinese army officers present at other sessions was notably absent during Zelensky’s speech and the Ukrainian leader said he failed to secure a one-on-one meeting with Chinese officials during his Singapore visit.

He also accused Beijing of aiding Ukraine’s mortal enemy.

“With China’s support to Russia, the war will last longer.  That is bad for the whole world, and the policy of China – who declares that it supports territorial integrity and sovereignty and declares it officially. For them it is not good,” Zelensky told journalists.

It was not clear whether Zelensky succeeded in securing new support for Kyiv from non-aligned south-east Asian countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.

Instead, Indonesian president-elect and retired general Prabowo Subianto – the new leader of the world’s most populous Muslim majority nation – spent much of his speech calling for an end to the on-going carnage in Gaza and an investigation into recent Israeli attacks that killed dozens of displaced civilians in Rafah.

Another political elephant in the room was what direction might the United States be heading in.

The Singapore gathering began just hours after a 12-person jury in a court-room in New York City convicted former US President Donald Trump on of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in his hush money criminal trial.

Asia is watching very closely for whether Trump will return to office in November and what impact that might have on the world’s most populous continent and a region already fraught with very real geopolitical fault lines.

His fellow Republican Senator Dan Sullivan also requested not to discuss Trump during a meeting with journalists, instead directing reporters to a press release.

“This is a very sad day for American and the rule of law,” Sullivan’s statement said, calling the verdict a “gross abuse of our justice system.”

But speaking to journalists, the Senator from Alaska also celebrated what he called America’s “commitment to liberty and democracy,” saying this marked a competitive advantage over “authoritarian aggression led by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.”

Sullivan was part of a bi-partisan delegation seeking to demonstrate Congressional commitment to US allies in Asia.

“The dictators we are allied against…are ally poor,” Sullivan said.

But there are clearly concerns about US reliability.

An academic from Japan – Washington’s closest ally in Asia – asked defense chiefs from Singapore and Malaysia about Trump’s possible re-election.  He called it a “nightmare” scenario.

That triggered nervous laughter from the audience and on stage.

Singapore’s Dr. Ng Eng Hen gamely responded, “we will work with any administration in any country if we can find common ground.”

I vividly remember collective nervousness at the 2017 Shangri-La Dialogue, held just months after Trump’s inauguration.

Trump’s then secretary of defense James Mattis clearly sought to reassure American defense partners worried about the new mercurial president.

“Bear with us,” Mattis told the audience, after being asked whether the “America First” commander-in-chief would contribute to the destruction of the post-World War II order.

“Once we’ve exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing.  We will still be there.”

Seven years later, uncertainty over the political future of the US is just one of many challenges facing policy makers.

One by one, the leaders of armies and navies shared their fears about climate change, nuclear proliferation, wars in Europe and the Middle East and concerns that a miscalculation between the US and Chinese militaries could spiral out of control

“The world cannot withstand a third geopolitical shock,” Singaporean defense chief Dr. Ng warned, after invoking the Gaza and Ukraine conflicts.

In this tense geopolitical environment, it’s far better for commanders to put on their dress uniforms and rub shoulders in the halls of a five-star hotel, than aim at each other over gun barrels on the battlefield.

China’s Chang’e-6 lunar probe departed from the far side of the moon on Tuesday, moving a step closer to completing an ambitious mission that underlines the country’s rise as a space superpower.

In a symbolic moment before takeoff, China also reportedly became the first country to display its national flag on the moon’s far side, which permanently faces away from Earth.

The probe, carrying the first lunar rocks ever collected from the far side of the moon, took off and entered lunar orbit early Tuesday Beijing time, following successful sample collection over the previous two days, according to a statement from the China National Space Administration (CNSA).

Its return journey to Earth is estimated to take about three weeks, with a landing expected in China’s Inner Mongolia region around June 25.

The successful return of the samples would give China a head start in harnessing the strategic and scientific benefits of expanded lunar exploration – an increasingly competitive field that has contributed to what NASA chief Bill Nelson calls a new “space race.”

This is the second time China has collected samples from the moon, after the Chang’e-5 brought back rocks from the near side in 2020.

Earlier this year, Nelson appeared to acknowledge China’s pace – and concerns about its intentions – were driving the American urgency to return to the moon, decades after its Apollo-crewed missions.

A photo posted by CNSA Tuesday and trending on China’s X-like Weibo platform shows the drilled surface in a shape resembling the Chinese character “zhong,” or “middle” in English – the first character in the Chinese word for “China.”

The Chang’e-6 probe withstood “the test of high temperatures” and collected the samples by drilling into the moon’s surface and scooping the soil and rocks up with a mechanical arm, CNSA said.

After collecting the specimens, Chang’e-6 extended a robotic arm to raise the Chinese flag, according to an animation released by CNSA.

The flag, made from the volcanic rock basalt, was designed to resist corrosion and the extreme temperatures on the far side of the moon with an eye on future lunar missions, a Chang’e-6 engineer told state-broadcaster CCTV.

The rock “was crushed, melted and drawn into filaments about one third of the diameter of a human hair, then spun into thread and woven into cloth,” said engineer Zhou Changyi.

“The lunar surface is rich in basalt,” Zhou added. “Since we’re building a lunar base in the future, we will most likely have to make basalt into fibers and use it as building materials.”

Historic mission

Chang’e-6 successfully landed on Sunday morning in the South Pole-Aitken Basin, the moon’s oldest impact basin formed some 4 billion years ago. It marked the second time a mission has successfully reached the far side of the moon, after China first completed that historic feat in 2019 with its Chang’e-4 probe.

If all goes as planned, the mission — which began on May 3 and is expected to last 53 days — could be a key milestone in China’s push to become a dominant space power.

The country’s plans include landing astronauts on the moon by 2030 and building a research base at its south pole, a region believed to contain water ice.

Samples collected by the Chang’e-6 lander could provide key clues into the origin and evolution of the moon, Earth and the solar system, experts say – while the mission itself provides important data and technical practice to advance China’s lunar ambitions.

“The enigmatic lunar far side is so different from the lunar nearside in so many ways, that without returned samples, lunar scientists can’t fully understand the moon as an entire planetary body,” said James Head, a professor emeritus at Brown University who has collaborated with Chinese scientists leading the mission. “Returned samples from Chang’e 6 will permit major strides to be made in solving these problems.”

The far side of the moon is out of range of normal communications, which means Chang’e-6 must also rely on a satellite that was launched into lunar orbit in March, the Queqiao-2.

China plans to launch two more missions in the Chang-e series as it nears its 2030 target of sending astronauts to the moon.

Space race

Multiple nations are expanding their lunar programs, with a growing focus on securing access to resources and further deep-space exploration.

Last year, India landed a spacecraft on the moon for the first time, while Russia’s first lunar landing mission in decades ended in failure when its Luna 25 probe crashed into the moon’s surface.

In January, Japan became the fifth country to land a spacecraft on the moon, though its Moon Sniper lander faced power issues due to an incorrect landing angle. The following month, IM-1, a NASA-funded mission designed by Texas-based private firm Intuitive Machines, touched down close to the lunar south pole.

That landing – the first by a US-made spacecraft in over five decades – is among several planned commercial missions intended to explore the lunar surface before NASA attempts to return US astronauts there as soon as 2026 and build its scientific base camp.

Any tourist wandering through the glitzy lobby of Singapore’s Shangri-La Hotel this weekend would have stumbled on a rather bizarre scene.

Military officers from around the world thronged the halls of the luxury hotel, their shoulders dripping with gold braids and epaulets, complicated colored bars lined up on the chests of their dress uniforms like some martial game of Tetris.

Every few minutes a defense minister strode purposely through the mix, surrounded by a phalanx of aides and escorts.

This gathering is an annual spectacle that to the uninitiated might seem surreal. But the topics being discussed here are deadly serious.

The annual Shangri-La Dialogue is one of the few places in the world where you can watch warriors who spend their careers preparing for armed conflict, engaged in polite, carefully-moderated debate.

The stakes this year could hardly be higher.

War rages in both the Middle East and Europe. Meanwhile China’s increasingly assertive moves has much of the Asia-Pacific on edge.

The Singapore summit brought key players together.

Where else would you have the President of the Philippines, a nation whichdo has seen its vessels increasingly targeted by Chinese coast guard ships in the disputed South China Sea, deliver a keynote address on the same stage that, two days later, Beijing’s new Defense Minister makes his debut appearance?

There was even a surprise appearance from Ukraine’s embattled president Volodymyr Zelensky – and a first face-to-face meeting between US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and his Chinese counterpart Adm Dong Jun.

Given its location in the city-state of Singapore, events in Asia – and in particular China’s behavior in the region – stalked the conference.

In his keynote speech, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. issued a stark warning about the ongoing confrontations between Philippine and China Coast Guard vessels in a contested part of the South China Sea.

“If a Filipino citizen is killed by a willful act,” he said, “that is I think, very, very close to what we define as an act of war.”

Two days later, China’s Adm Dong fired back from the same stage, accusing the Philippines of “blackmail” in the maritime dispute.

“There is a limit to our restraint,” said Admiral Dong Jun.

“I saw that as a threat,” said Dewi Fortuna Anwar, a research professor at Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Center who has been attending the Shangri-La Dialogue since its founding twenty-one years ago.

“In decades past, the Chinese only came in a small number and they were extremely quiet,” she said.  “Now they’re very self confident…they intervene in all the sessions.”

The open nature of the Shangri-La Dialogue provides delegates with a unique opportunity to ask blunt questions of speakers.

After his speech on Sunday, China’s Dong received many questions from audience members on Beijing’s increased threats towards self-governing Taiwan as well as its disputed claims in the South China Sea, and he replied in unapologetic terms.

The “separatists” in Taiwan’s newly-elected government would be “nailed to the pillar of shame in history,” he said.

But equally, Chinese military officers also used Q&A sessions at other key moments to make their views known.

Senior Colonel Yanzhong Cao of China’s People’s Liberation Army asked US Secretary of Defense asked US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin whether the US was trying to build a NATO-like alliance in the Asia-Pacific region, adding the claim “the eastward expansion of NATO has led to the Ukraine crisis.”

“I respectfully disagree,” Austin replied, the audience in the ballroom then erupting into a rare burst of applause.

“The Ukraine crisis obviously was caused because Mr. Putin made a decision to unlawfully invade his neighbor,” Austin continued. “This was brought on because of a decision by Mr. Putin.”

Later that day, Ukrainian leader Zelensky got a borderline rock star welcome when he made a surprise appearance at the conference, dressed in his trademark fatigues and black t-shirt.

“We stand with you,” Ng Eng Hen, Singapore’s minister of defense, later said to Zelensky.

But the large contingent of Chinese army officers present at other sessions was notably absent during Zelensky’s speech and the Ukrainian leader said he failed to secure a one-on-one meeting with Chinese officials during his Singapore visit.

He also accused Beijing of aiding Ukraine’s mortal enemy.

“With China’s support to Russia, the war will last longer.  That is bad for the whole world, and the policy of China – who declares that it supports territorial integrity and sovereignty and declares it officially. For them it is not good,” Zelensky told journalists.

It was not clear whether Zelensky succeeded in securing new support for Kyiv from non-aligned south-east Asian countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.

Instead, Indonesian president-elect and retired general Prabowo Subianto – the new leader of the world’s most populous Muslim majority nation – spent much of his speech calling for an end to the on-going carnage in Gaza and an investigation into recent Israeli attacks that killed dozens of displaced civilians in Rafah.

Another political elephant in the room was what direction might the United States be heading in.

The Singapore gathering began just hours after a 12-person jury in a court-room in New York City convicted former US President Donald Trump on of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in his hush money criminal trial.

Asia is watching very closely for whether Trump will return to office in November and what impact that might have on the world’s most populous continent and a region already fraught with very real geopolitical fault lines.

His fellow Republican Senator Dan Sullivan also requested not to discuss Trump during a meeting with journalists, instead directing reporters to a press release.

“This is a very sad day for American and the rule of law,” Sullivan’s statement said, calling the verdict a “gross abuse of our justice system.”

But speaking to journalists, the Senator from Alaska also celebrated what he called America’s “commitment to liberty and democracy,” saying this marked a competitive advantage over “authoritarian aggression led by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.”

Sullivan was part of a bi-partisan delegation seeking to demonstrate Congressional commitment to US allies in Asia.

“The dictators we are allied against…are ally poor,” Sullivan said.

But there are clearly concerns about US reliability.

An academic from Japan – Washington’s closest ally in Asia – asked defense chiefs from Singapore and Malaysia about Trump’s possible re-election.  He called it a “nightmare” scenario.

That triggered nervous laughter from the audience and on stage.

Singapore’s Dr. Ng Eng Hen gamely responded, “we will work with any administration in any country if we can find common ground.”

I vividly remember collective nervousness at the 2017 Shangri-La Dialogue, held just months after Trump’s inauguration.

Trump’s then secretary of defense James Mattis clearly sought to reassure American defense partners worried about the new mercurial president.

“Bear with us,” Mattis told the audience, after being asked whether the “America First” commander-in-chief would contribute to the destruction of the post-World War II order.

“Once we’ve exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing.  We will still be there.”

Seven years later, uncertainty over the political future of the US is just one of many challenges facing policy makers.

One by one, the leaders of armies and navies shared their fears about climate change, nuclear proliferation, wars in Europe and the Middle East and concerns that a miscalculation between the US and Chinese militaries could spiral out of control

“The world cannot withstand a third geopolitical shock,” Singaporean defense chief Dr. Ng warned, after invoking the Gaza and Ukraine conflicts.

In this tense geopolitical environment, it’s far better for commanders to put on their dress uniforms and rub shoulders in the halls of a five-star hotel, than aim at each other over gun barrels on the battlefield.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may soon be forced to choose: Agree to a ceasefire deal with Hamas or keep his government in power.

But as he confronts that choice, Netanyahu is also looking for a way to avoid it altogether.

For months, Netanyahu has gingerly balanced these competing imperatives by refusing to even contemplate a permanent ceasefire as he blamed Hamas’s “delusional demands” for the collapse of previous rounds of negotiations. But after US President Joe Biden publicly outlined Israel’s latest ceasefire proposal on Friday – one that could lead to a permanent truce and which Hamas may be prepared to accept – Netanyahu is now out of time.

“I think that Bibi is cornered now,” said Aviv Bushinsky, a former adviser to Netanyahu, using the prime minister’s nickname. Biden is “forcing Bibi to take off his mask and say: ‘OK, now is the money time. Are you in favor of a deal?’,” he said.

As Israel awaits Hamas’ response to the latest proposal, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and other far-right members of Netanyahu’s coalition are already threatening to bolt from the government and cause its collapse if the prime minister follows through.

Amid the chorus of threats from his right flank, Netanyahu is trying to reframe the latest ceasefire proposal, insisting to Ben Gvir and others that the terms of the deal are not as Biden defined them. While Biden squarely framed the proposal as a way to end the war, Netanyahu is insisting Israel will not end the war until and unless Hamas is eliminated.

Netanyahu told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Security Committee on Monday that “the claim that we agreed to a ceasefire without our conditions being met is not true.”

He appeared to be referring to the permanent ceasefire outlined in the second phase of the proposal, the conditions of which Israel and Hamas would need to negotiate during the first phase – a point Netanyahu has sought to emphasize in recent days.

According to Biden, the three-phase proposal would pair a release of hostages with a “full and complete ceasefire.”

But Netanyahu’s spokesperson told journalists at a briefing Monday that Biden had presented only a “partial” outline of the deal Israel had offered Hamas.

“The war will be stopped for the purpose of returning hostages and then we will proceed with further discussions. There are other details that the US President did not present to the public,” the spokesperson added.

The spokesperson reiterated Israel’s refusal to agree to any ceasefire until all hostages had been released, until Gaza no longer posed “a threat” to Israel, and until Hamas’s “governing and military capabilities” in Gaza had been eradicated.

“The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter. It’s not an option,” said the spokesperson.

Netanyahu’s efforts to convince the far-right ministers in order to avoid choosing between a ceasefire deal and the survival of his government have so far fallen flat. Ben Gvir said Monday that Netanyahu’s office refused to follow through on a commitment to show him the draft proposal, leaving him convinced the prime minister has something to hide.

If Ben Gvir or Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich don’t back off their threats to leave the government, Netanyahu will be back to the binary choice that is beginning to materialize before his eyes.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid has offered to provide a “safety net” to keep the government in power in order to achieve a ceasefire deal, but doing so would also be handing Lapid the keys to forcing early elections once the deal is implemented.

Just as it has been over the past eight months, Netanyahu’s political survival may be wrapped up in the continuation of the war and his elusive pursuit of total victory over Hamas.

Netanyahu is confronting the choice between his government’s survival and a hostage deal at a time when his political fortunes have begun to improve. For the first time this year, Netanyahu edged out his chief political rival Benny Gantz as the preferred choice for prime minister for Israelis, 36% to 30%, according to a Channel 12 survey last week.

And a smattering of recent polls have shown Gantz’s National Unity party faltering, while Netanyahu’s Likud is making modest gains. National Unity would still win a plurality of seats in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, but the party’s 19-seat advantage over Likud in December has dropped to a four-seat advantage in last week’s Channel 12 poll.

The improvement in Netanyahu’s political standing coincided with a surge of international condemnation of Israel’s war effort in Gaza and the International Criminal Court’s decision to seek an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, all of which have positioned Netanyahu domestically as Israel’s defender, a familiar and comfortable role for Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. Meanwhile, Gantz’s threat to leave the war cabinet over Netanyahu’s lack of long-term strategy in Gaza appears to be the cause of his drop in support.

A poll by Israel’s Channel 11 on Monday put the Israeli public’s support for the ceasefire deal currently on the table at 40%, with 27% opposed and 33% unsure.

But if Netanyahu is now contemplating whether there is more upside to continuing the war than reaching a ceasefire deal, Biden’s speech last week didn’t just force Netanyahu to confront that choice – it was also aimed at countering the pressure Netanyahu is now facing to abandon his own government’s proposal.

“I know there are those in Israel who will not agree with this plan and will call for the war to continue indefinitely. Some are even in the government coalition,” Biden said. “Well, I’ve urged the leadership in Israel to stand behind this deal, despite whatever pressure comes.”

Despite Netanyahu’s remarks that the conditions for ending the war “have not changed,” the US State Department said Monday it was “completely confident” Israel would go along with the proposal laid out by Biden. “The only thing standing in the way of an immediate ceasefire today is Hamas,” Matthew Miller told a press briefing.

But one key question remains: Will Hamas force Netanyahu to make the choice he now confronts? Or will Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader in Gaza, offer Netanyahu an escape hatch of his own making?

Hamas said it viewed Biden’s speech about the latest Israeli proposal “positively,” but has yet to submit its official response.

While the latest proposal makes major concessions to close the gap with Hamas’s demands – including by offering a clear pathway to a permanent ceasefire – it still falls short of meeting all of the demands.

It allows an initial 6-week ceasefire period to be extended for as long as the parties need to negotiate a permanent truce that includes the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza in a second phase of the deal. But it does not require Israel to commit to a permanent ceasefire upfront.

Hamas’s refusal to compromise on that point and sign off on this deal could let Netanyahu off the hook, and plunge Gaza into many more months of war.

This story and its headline have been updated.

The Israel Defense Forces says its representatives have informed the families of four hostages being held in Gaza “that they are no longer alive.”

The IDF said it had told the families of Chaim Peri, Yoram Metzger, Amiram Cooper, and Nadav Popplewell “who were brutally abducted to the Gaza Strip on October 7, that they are no longer alive and that their bodies are held by the Hamas terrorist organization.”

The IDF said the decision to pronounce the four hostages dead was based on intelligence and was confirmed by a Ministry of Health expert committee, in coordination with the Ministry of Religious Services and the Chief Rabbi of Israel.

The circumstances of their deaths in Hamas captivity are still under examination, according to the IDF, which says it uses a “a wide variety of methods to gather information about the hostages who remain in the Gaza Strip.”

Chief spokesperson for the IDF, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, said “Their loved ones were killed a few months ago during Hamas captivity in Gaza and their bodies are still being held by Hamas. We assess that the four of them were killed while together in the area of Khan Younis during an operation there against Hamas.”

In May, Hamas said Popplewell, an Israeli-British citizen, had died from wounds following a strike by Israeli fighter jets on his place of detention over a month earlier.

More than 250 people were taken hostage and moved to Gaza during Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel but more than 100 were released during a temporary truce last year. The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office believes there are still 124 hostages, living and dead, in Gaza – four of whom were taken before October 7. Of the remaining 120 who were taken on October 7, Israel now believes 41 are dead.

Israeli War Cabinet minister and Chairman of Israel’s National Unity Party, Benny Gantz sent condolences to the families of those declared dead on Monday, saying on his Telegram channel the news was “a painful reminder of our supreme moral duty to continue to fight against terrorism and to do everything to return all the hostages home as soon as possible, even at painful costs.”

The latest deaths are likely to increase pressure on the Israeli leadership to secure a ceasefire proposal outlined by US President Joe Biden last week.

Following news of the four deaths, the Hostage and Missing Families Forum in Israel reiterated its demand to the Israeli government to immediately approve the proposal.

The organization called the news of the four deaths a mark of disgrace and a sad reflection on the significance of delaying previous deals.

“The Israeli government must send out a negotiating delegation this evening and return all 124 hostages, both living and murdered, to their homes,” the group said in a statement Monday.

“Chaim, Yoram, Amiram, and Nadav were kidnapped alive, some of them were with other hostages who returned in the previous deal – and they should have returned alive to their country and their families,” the statement added.

The three-phase proposal outlined by Biden on Friday would secure the release of hostages paired with a ceasefire.

The US president outlined the plan – which he said was proposed by Israel – in unusual detail in what appears to have been an attempt to pressure both Israel and Hamas into an agreement.

On Monday, leaders from the Group of 7 (G7) nations added to that pressure by endorsing the proposal, calling on Hamas to accept it, and claiming that “Israel is ready to move forward” with it.

However, whether Israel is, in fact, “ready to move forward” with the plan laid out by Biden remains something of an unknown, as the Israeli government has offered a series of non-committal statements that have created a degree of uncertainty about the plan.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameroon also noted the proposal in a post on the social media platform X, in which he said he was “greatly saddened” by the death of Israeli-British citizen Popplewell. “My thoughts are with his loved ones at this terrible time for them,” Cameron wrote. “With a new deal on the table, we reiterate our demand for Hamas to send all hostages home.”

Husbands, fathers, brothers

The Hostage and Missing Families Forum released the following information on the four hostages declared dead Monday.

Nadav Popplewell: 51, from Kibbutz Nirim, a family man of distinction and a generous friend, a lover of books and science fiction.

Nadav was kidnapped from his home’s safe room along with his mother, Channa Peri, who was released after 49 days in captivity.

His older brother, Roy, was murdered on October 7.

Amiram Cooper: 84, one of the founders of Kibbutz Nir Oz. He was kidnapped together with his wife, Nurit, who was released from Hamas captivity after 17 days.

Amiram saw the establishment of the kibbutz as his life’s mission.

He was an economist, poet, and composer.

He is survived by his wife, three children, and nine grandchildren.

Yoram Metzger: 80, from Kibbutz Nir Oz, kidnapped from his home along with his wife, Tamar, who was released from Hamas captivity after 53 days.

Yoram was a man of family and people, stories and humor. He was one of the founders of the Nir Oz Winery.

Yoram is survived by his wife Tamar, three children, and seven grandchildren.

Chaim Peri: 80, from Kibbutz Nir Oz, a man of peace, art, and cinema.

He taught in schools in the area and at Sapir College.

He established and built the art gallery in the kibbutz and the sculpture garden.

He was one of the founders of the Nir Oz Winery.

Chaim was abducted from the safe room in his home while protecting his wife, Osnat.

He is survived by his wife, five children, and 13 grandchildren.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

The Israel Defense Forces says its representatives have informed the families of four hostages being held in Gaza “that they are no longer alive.”

The IDF said it had told the families of Chaim Peri, Yoram Metzger, Amiram Cooper, and Nadav Popplewell “who were brutally abducted to the Gaza Strip on October 7, that they are no longer alive and that their bodies are held by the Hamas terrorist organization.”

The IDF said the decision to pronounce the four hostages dead was based on intelligence and was confirmed by a Ministry of Health expert committee, in coordination with the Ministry of Religious Services and the Chief Rabbi of Israel.

The circumstances of their deaths in Hamas captivity are still under examination, according to the IDF, which says it uses a “a wide variety of methods to gather information about the hostages who remain in the Gaza Strip.”

Chief spokesperson for the IDF, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, said “Their loved ones were killed a few months ago during Hamas captivity in Gaza and their bodies are still being held by Hamas. We assess that the four of them were killed while together in the area of Khan Younis during an operation there against Hamas.”

In May, Hamas said Popplewell, an Israeli-British citizen, had died from wounds following a strike by Israeli fighter jets on his place of detention over a month earlier.

More than 250 people were taken hostage and moved to Gaza during Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel but more than 100 were released during a temporary truce last year. The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office believes there are still 124 hostages, living and dead, in Gaza – four of whom were taken before October 7. Of the remaining 120 who were taken on October 7, Israel now believes 41 are dead.

Israeli War Cabinet minister and Chairman of Israel’s National Unity Party, Benny Gantz sent condolences to the families of those declared dead on Monday, saying on his Telegram channel the news was “a painful reminder of our supreme moral duty to continue to fight against terrorism and to do everything to return all the hostages home as soon as possible, even at painful costs.”

The latest deaths are likely to increase pressure on the Israeli leadership to secure a ceasefire proposal outlined by US President Joe Biden last week.

Following news of the four deaths, the Hostage and Missing Families Forum in Israel reiterated its demand to the Israeli government to immediately approve the proposal.

The organization called the news of the four deaths a mark of disgrace and a sad reflection on the significance of delaying previous deals.

“The Israeli government must send out a negotiating delegation this evening and return all 124 hostages, both living and murdered, to their homes,” the group said in a statement Monday.

“Chaim, Yoram, Amiram, and Nadav were kidnapped alive, some of them were with other hostages who returned in the previous deal – and they should have returned alive to their country and their families,” the statement added.

The three-phase proposal outlined by Biden on Friday would secure the release of hostages paired with a ceasefire.

The US president outlined the plan – which he said was proposed by Israel – in unusual detail in what appears to have been an attempt to pressure both Israel and Hamas into an agreement.

On Monday, leaders from the Group of 7 (G7) nations added to that pressure by endorsing the proposal, calling on Hamas to accept it, and claiming that “Israel is ready to move forward” with it.

However, whether Israel is, in fact, “ready to move forward” with the plan laid out by Biden remains something of an unknown, as the Israeli government has offered a series of non-committal statements that have created a degree of uncertainty about the plan.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameroon also noted the proposal in a post on the social media platform X, in which he said he was “greatly saddened” by the death of Israeli-British citizen Popplewell. “My thoughts are with his loved ones at this terrible time for them,” Cameron wrote. “With a new deal on the table, we reiterate our demand for Hamas to send all hostages home.”

Husbands, fathers, brothers

The Hostage and Missing Families Forum released the following information on the four hostages declared dead Monday.

Nadav Popplewell: 51, from Kibbutz Nirim, a family man of distinction and a generous friend, a lover of books and science fiction.

Nadav was kidnapped from his home’s safe room along with his mother, Channa Peri, who was released after 49 days in captivity.

His older brother, Roy, was murdered on October 7.

Amiram Cooper: 84, one of the founders of Kibbutz Nir Oz. He was kidnapped together with his wife, Nurit, who was released from Hamas captivity after 17 days.

Amiram saw the establishment of the kibbutz as his life’s mission.

He was an economist, poet, and composer.

He is survived by his wife, three children, and nine grandchildren.

Yoram Metzger: 80, from Kibbutz Nir Oz, kidnapped from his home along with his wife, Tamar, who was released from Hamas captivity after 53 days.

Yoram was a man of family and people, stories and humor. He was one of the founders of the Nir Oz Winery.

Yoram is survived by his wife Tamar, three children, and seven grandchildren.

Chaim Peri: 80, from Kibbutz Nir Oz, a man of peace, art, and cinema.

He taught in schools in the area and at Sapir College.

He established and built the art gallery in the kibbutz and the sculpture garden.

He was one of the founders of the Nir Oz Winery.

Chaim was abducted from the safe room in his home while protecting his wife, Osnat.

He is survived by his wife, five children, and 13 grandchildren.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

A nationwide strike in Nigeria brought air travel to a standstill and plunged the country into darkness on Monday as union workers stormed the national grid and shut down the nation’s power supply, according to the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN).

Tens of millions are without power and flights have been disrupted, as the Nigerian Labor Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) initiated an indefinite strike.

Operators from TCN were beaten and injured while they were forcibly removed from control rooms, the company said. Cane-swinging union workers were also seen in photos circulating on social media Monday ordering personnel of the country’s tax agency out of their offices.

This strike comes after failed negotiations with the government to raise the federal minimum wage. The unions are also protesting a recent hike in electricity tariffs.

The unions’ demands include raising the minimum wage from 30,000 naira ($22.4) to 494,000 naira ($369.6). Presidential aide Bayo Onanuga dismissed these demands as “unreasonable,” in a post on the social media platform X.

The government had proposed a 100% increase to 60,000 naira ($44.89), which the unions rejected, seeking a 1,547% increase instead, Onanuga added.

Despite being Africa’s fourth-largest economy, Nigeria’s minimum wage is not among the continent’s top ten, lagging far behind countries like Seychelles, where workers receive a minimum wage of $465.4 monthly.

Health care system disrupted

“I’m worried because the state of the healthcare system is on the verge of collapse,” he said, adding that his medical facility located in southwest Nigeria was unable to power crucial hospital equipment due to the shutdown of the national grid.

“Coming in the morning, the emergency (unit) and everywhere was dark. Patients and healthcare workers were all in darkness.”

Nigerian Justice Minister Lateef Fagbemi has declared the strike illegal in a letter to the labor unions, calling it “premature and ineffectual,” in a statement posted by Onanuga.

The strike has elicited mixed reactions from Nigerians on social media, with some declaring support, others saying it is detrimental to citizens.

“I support the strike action by the NLC. 30k or 60k minimum wage in 2024 Nigeria is unsustainable and unacceptable,” wrote lawyer Festus Ogun in a post on X.

“The NLC should refrain from actions that punish the common man – the average Nigerian. Electricity, roads, airports and other critical infrastructure should be left to function as normal,” argued management consultant Dipo Awojide.

Controversial expenditure

Nigeria faces numerous economic challenges, including the devaluation of its currency which has dropped to record lows in recent months, as well as a cost-of-living crisis marked by soaring prices for food, transport, and health care. Inflation has reached 33.69%, according to the country’s data office, the highest in nearly three decades.

President Bola Tinubu’s administration has faced criticism for controversial spending of public funds which has fueled public anger.

Last month, the president approved a 90 billion-naira ($67 million) subsidy for Muslims attending the Hajj pilgrimage, and previously, he authorized multimillion-dollar budgets for luxury SUVs and renovations for presidential residences, as well as vehicles for the First Lady’s office, which is not formally recognized under Nigerian law.

Presidential spokesman Ajuri Ngelale admitted that the current wage is “unsustainably low” but warned that the unions’ proposed increase would have severe economic consequences, including significantly higher school fees and potential mass retrenchment if schools and other institutions cannot afford the increased wages.

“Nigerian parents will now have to grapple with school fees that are 10 times more than what they are paying today … you are going to mandate schools to pay cooks, janitors, and others 20 times more in wages?” he said.