Saudi, UK foreign ministers discuss Gaza crisis
The parties discussed developments in the Gaza Strip, the need to stop Israeli attacks and violations, and how to end the humanitarian catastrophe suffered by the residents of the enclave, the SPA added.
The phone call came on the same day as a UN Security Council meeting on the Gaza crisis, which had been requested by the UK and other countries.
During the meeting, the UK, which was joined by Denmark, France, Greece and Slovenia, urged Israel to reverse its recent decision to expand military operations in Gaza, warning it would deepen Palestinian suffering, worsen the humanitarian crisis and endanger hostages.
The UK's representative at the meeting, James Kariuki, said the move would not secure the release of hostages held by Hamas since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, and reiterated calls for their unconditional release.
He stressed that Hamas must disarm and play no role in Gaza's governance, which should involve the Palestinian Authority.
He also urged Israel to lift restrictions on aid, open all land routes for essential supplies, and allow humanitarian agencies to operate freely.
Kariuki also highlighted a further $11.4 million provided by the UK for humanitarian funding for Gaza. He called on both sides to engage in negotiations in good faith toward a ceasefire and a two-state solution, which he added was the only path to lasting peace.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
How global unity can end Israel's Gaza genocide
The consequences of the Israeli genocide in Gaza will be dire. An event of this barbarity, sustained by an international conspiracy of moral inertia and silence, will not be relegated to history as just another conflict or a mere tragedy. The Gaza genocide will be a catalyst for major events to come. Israel and its benefactors are acutely aware of this reality. This is why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in a race against time, desperately trying to ensure his country remains relevant, if not standing, in the coming era. He is pursuing this through territorial expansion in Syria, relentless aggression against Lebanon and, of course, the desire to annex all the Palestinian territories it occupies. But history cannot be controlled with such precision. However clever he may think he is, Netanyahu has already lost the ability to influence the outcome. He has been unable to set a clear agenda in Gaza, let alone achieve any strategic goals in a 365 sq. km expanse of destroyed concrete and ashes. The Gazans have proven that their collective 'sumud' (steadfastness) can defeat one of the world's best-equipped armies. History has taught us that changes of great magnitude are inevitable. The true heartbreak is that such change is not happening fast enough to save a starving population in Gaza and that the growing pro-Palestinian sentiment is not expanding at the rate needed to achieve a decisive political outcome. Our confidence in this inevitable change is rooted in history. The First World War was not just a 'Great War' but a cataclysmic event that shattered the geopolitical order of its time. Four empires were fundamentally reshuffled; some, like the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman, were erased from existence. However clever he may think he is, Netanyahu has already lost the ability to influence the outcome. Dr. Ramzy Baroud The new world order resulting from the First World War was short-lived. The international system we have today is a direct outcome of the Second World War. This includes the UN and all the Western-centric economic, legal and political institutions that were forged at Bretton Woods in 1944, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and, ultimately, NATO, thus sowing the seeds of yet more global conflict. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was heralded as the event that would resolve the lingering conflicts of the post-Second World War geopolitical struggle. It supposedly ushered in a new and permanent global realignment — or, to some, the 'end of history.' History, however, had other plans. Not even the horrific Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the subsequent US-led wars could reinvent the global order in a way that was consistent with US-Western interests and priorities. Gaza is infinitely small when judged by its geography, economic worth or political import. Yet, it has proven to be the most significant global event in terms of defining this generation's political consciousness. The fact that the self-proclaimed guardians of the post-Second World War order are the very entities that are violently and brazenly violating every international and humanitarian law is enough to fundamentally alter our relationship with the 'rules-based order' championed by the West. This may not seem significant now, but it will have profound, long-term consequences. It has largely compromised and, in fact, delegitimized the moral authority imposed, often through violence, by the West over the rest of the world for decades, especially in the Global South. Gaza has proven to be the most significant global event in terms of defining this generation's political consciousness. Dr. Ramzy Baroud This self-imposed delegitimization will also impact the very idea of democracy, which has been under siege in many countries, including in the West. This is only natural, considering that most of the planet feels strongly that Israel must end its genocide and that its leaders must be held accountable. Yet, little to no action has been taken. The shift in Western public opinion in favor of Palestinians is astounding when considered against the backdrop of the media's dehumanization of the Palestinian people and various governments' blind allegiance to Israel. More shocking is that this shift is largely the result of the work of ordinary people on social media, activists mobilizing in the streets and independent journalists, mostly in Gaza, working under extreme duress and with minimal resources. The left is problematic in its own way. While not a monolith and while many on the left have championed the global protests against the genocide, others remain splintered and unable to form a unified front, even temporarily. Some leftists are still chasing their own tail, crippled by the worry that being anti-Zionist will earn them the label of being antisemitic. For this group, self-policing and self-censorship are preventing them from taking decisive action. History does not take its cues from Israel or the Western powers. Gaza will result in the kind of global shifts that will affect us all, far beyond the Middle East. For now, however, it is most urgent that we use our collective will and actions to influence a single historical event: ending the genocide and famine in Gaza. The rest will be left to history and to those who wish to be relevant when the world changes again. • Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His latest book, 'Before the Flood,' will be published by Seven Stories Press. His website is X: @RamzyBaroud
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Netanyahu's Gaza City plan a high-stakes risk
When anyone looks at the jungle of rubble, twisted metal and collapsed buildings that constitute the graveyard of Palestinian existence in the small but overcrowded strip of land called Gaza, one has to wonder who would want to resurrect it. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced last week that, against the advice of the Israeli military, including its chief of staff, his revised objective is the complete occupation of Gaza, even though Israel has always been the legal occupier. The security Cabinet approved a plan to take control of Gaza City. Israel's occupation of the city may take up to six months, meaning this operation will likely last into 2026. This can only be seen as a precursor to the annexation of all or large parts of the territory. Until October 2023, anyone in Israel advocating the reoccupation of Gaza would have seen their credibility smashed in seconds. Why would Israel burden itself with this overcrowded hellhole and take on the responsibility of 2.3 million Palestinians? But ambitions have changed and, for the 'Greater Israel' fan club, opportunities have arisen. For this extremist far-right Israeli government, the genocide it is enacting has created the opportunity to empty Gaza either through expulsion or extermination. Forced displacement has been used on a massive scale and Netanyahu's plan envisages emptying Gaza City itself. About 800,000 Palestinians will no doubt be forcibly displaced from the enclave's largest city to the so-called safe area at Al-Mawasi further south. All this highlights how the Israeli military operations, which resumed in March when Israel broke the ceasefire, have utterly failed. Hostages have not been released and some of them killed. Hamas has not surrendered. Israel's occupation of the city may take up to six months, meaning this operation will likely last into 2026. Chris Doyle The Israeli government will carry out this operation knowing it does not have the support of the military leadership, notably Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir. Serious questions abound as to whether the plan is workable. The number of divisions required is significant and calling up further reserves is incredibly politically sensitive within Israel. In addition, an ever-increasing segment of Israeli society is prepared to protest against this. So, what is Netanyahu's game plan? He always has one. Is this all intimidation, an attempt to bully Hamas into releasing the hostages, as well as surrendering its foothold in Gaza prior to leaving it once and for all? Perhaps. But there are those on the Israeli right who cherish the dream of taking Gaza and bringing about Donald Trump's riviera plan, but with one major difference. It would be run by Israel and Israeli companies, not American ones. Is this a strategic decision by Netanyahu or a gambit to put pressure on Hamas to surrender and disarm? Surrender and hand over the hostages, or else Israel annexes the territory. The answer perhaps is that it could be a bit of both. And Netanyahu is betting on both options to ensure he wins either way. Reoccupying the whole of Gaza and emptying Gaza City would placate his base and maintain his coalition. A collapse in Hamas, leading to a situation of surrender, would allow him to claim a historic victory that few would have foreseen. Netanyahu will then claim to have smashed both Hamas and Hezbollah, knocked Iran back and brought down the Assad regime. All these are questionable claims, but they are conceivably sellable in any Israeli election season, Netanyahu's top priority being to win elections and stay in power. Is this a strategic decision by Netanyahu or a gambit to put pressure on Hamas to surrender and disarm? Chris Doyle To achieve this, the prime minister will have to sweet talk Trump, the only person who could single-handedly throw a spanner in the genocidal works. The trick so far has been to keep telling the Americans that there is just one more stage needed before Israel can bring a halt to its operations in Gaza. This same game has been played so many times. In the past, it was to invade Rafah. Most recently, it was Deir Al-Balah in the middle. Now it is Gaza City. Netanyahu tried to be convincing, saying: 'The minute you collapse the center of gravity, the last true fortress left to Hamas in Gaza, Hamas falls apart.' There is always one more target to take out before this elusive victory is achieved. Who knows if this will work. Trump has a well-known aversion to losers, so Netanyahu will have to maintain an aura of invincibility and political success. This may be tougher as he loses friends at home and abroad, but there is no sign of a breakdown in relations just yet. But even if the White House were to become disenchanted with the Israeli premier, that does not mean it would leap to the aid of the Palestinians or the hostages. This operation is a high-stakes risk for Netanyahu, but whichever way it pans out, the Palestinians in Gaza will be denied any winning move. The debate within Israel is largely focused on how fast and hard to hit. As for peace and security in the region, these are just fantasies at present. • Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Factions pour fuel on the fire of regional maps
Can a country, no matter how large, contain two armies, two authorities and two 'states?' Is obligatory coexistence just a form of truce until one army succeeds in defeating the other? Is a clash between the two armies, two authorities and two states inevitable because the factions are impeding countries from heading toward a time of stability and investment? Have the countries grown weary of factions and decided to return to a time of normal states after paying a heavy price during the time of militias? The time of the factions did not succeed in deterring the savagery of Benjamin Netanyahu's army. It all began during a meeting at a Beirut apartment between Iranian and Lebanese activists in the wake of the success of Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The focus was on how to fortify the regime of the revolution against potential dangers. The gatherers believed that the ouster of Mohammed Mosaddegh's government in 1953 was a strong example of why regular armies should not be trusted. They believed that such armies tended to pounce whenever they sensed an impending revolution or whiff of change. They also believed that armies were a possible source of danger because they could be infiltrated by Western intelligence services. The gatherers were therefore in agreement on the need to come up with a force that would prevent a segment of the Iranian army from rising up against the Khomeinist revolution. Anis Al-Naqqash claimed that he was the first to propose the idea of forming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Iranian model would be replicated in other countries in the region as part of the 'Axis of Resistance' project. Following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and with then-Syrian President Hafez Assad's approval, Khomeini formed Hezbollah in Lebanon as the first tangible implementation of Iran's policy of 'exporting the revolution' that is enshrined in its constitution. Iran would go on to transform southern Lebanon into an Iranian-Israeli front, when it had previously served as a Palestinian-Israeli one. As it clashed with Israel over the years, Hezbollah gained a halo of sorts, transforming into its own army and statelet. Despite Lebanon's diverse composition, Hezbollah became the country's sole decision-maker that had the final say over presidents and governments. Khomeini formed Hezbollah in Lebanon as the first tangible implementation of Iran's policy of 'exporting the revolution.' Ghassan Charbel It even took away from the government one of its most important powers: the decision of war and peace. Hezbollah never consulted anyone when it embarked on its mission to save Bashar Assad's regime with Iran and Russia's backing. It never consulted anyone when it opened its 'support front' in solidarity with Gaza following the Oct. 7, 2023, Al-Aqsa Flood Operation. The Syrian army, meanwhile, overestimated its own strength before realizing it would be unable to save the Assad regime. So, it turned to pro-Iran militias and Russian air power. Iran would also reap another success, this time in Iraq, where Gen. Qassem Soleimani would turn Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani's fatwa to take part in the fight against Daesh into an opportunity to form a parallel army called the Popular Mobilization Forces. Of course, we cannot deny the role of the PMF in fighting Daesh, but recent developments in Iraq are demonstrating the difficulty of having two armies coexisting in one map. We can add to the above the Houthi coup in Yemen, which completed the Axis of Resistance, marking an unprecedented success for Iran. It managed to not only surround Israel, but also some other countries in the region. It established a group of armies to serve as its proxies and keep danger away from its own territory. Iran possessed decisive cards in four countries that it could leverage in any serious negotiations with the US. Building the Axis of Resistance demanded billions of dollars and meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. It built massive tunnel networks, set up weapons smuggling routes and carried out attacks, bombings and assassinations. With the axis all set up, Iran appeared to be the Middle East's most powerful player. However, the axis would eventually break apart due to three factors: Israel's military superiority on various fronts, the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and the toppling of the Assad regime in Syria. Recent developments in Iraq are demonstrating the difficulty of having two armies coexisting in one map. Ghassan Charbel Iran has so far refused to acknowledge the new reality in the region, even after the war reached its own skies and claimed the lives of its generals and scientists. It is having a hard time admitting that Yahya Sinwar's Al-Aqsa Flood Operation turned into a calamity for the Axis of Resistance. The axis lost Syria — its most significant link — and Hezbollah, with its ability to fight or deter Israel. Iran lost its ability to attack Israel from the territory of its Arab neighbors. To add to that, the governments in Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut are all demanding that the state has a monopoly over arms, while demanding roadmaps that are safeguarded by constitutions and regular armies, not the factions. Given its past experiences, Baghdad has concluded that it cannot speak of stability, prosperity and investment if drones operated by the 'private sector' can attack radars or oil fields or if members of the PMF can 'punish' the state's own security forces. The parliament's confusion over how to deal with the PMF law does not stem just from the US' opposition to it. Meanwhile, remarks by an adviser to the Iranian supreme leader, Ali Akbar Velayati, reflect just how much Tehran refuses to acknowledge and work with the changes that have taken place in the region. He rejected the Lebanese government's decision to disarm all factions, including Hezbollah, disregarding Lebanon's drive toward wanting to once again become a normal state that makes its own decisions through its institutions. Velayati also said the PMF in Iraq was playing the same role Hezbollah played in Lebanon. In a remarkable development that reflects the extent of the changes in the region, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry condemned Velayati's statements as blatant interference in Lebanese internal affairs. The Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese people are dreaming of the establishment of their own normal states. The factions are not the sole cause of instability in the region, but their presence is preventing countries from consolidating their institutions, fighting corruption and carrying out development plans. Armed factions weaken states and waste the most important revolution any country can possess — that of stability under the rule of law. The factions' insistence on holding on to their arsenals means that difficult days are ahead. Rejecting a normal state means the factions will pour fuel on the fire of regional maps. • Ghassan Charbel is editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. X: @GhasanCharbel This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.
