Oldest NATO states
NATO represents more than a mutual defense treaty to its member countries; it is a strategic platform for collaboration, coordination, and global influence.
Business Insider Africa presents the oldest NATO states.
This list is courtesy of Global Firepower.
The coalition initially had twelve members.
Since its inception in 1949, NATO has evolved into a complex alliance that shapes global norms, enables interoperability, and allows member countries to project collective strength diplomatically and militarily.
NATO nations coordinate defense policies, standardize equipment, and carry out coordinated actions.
This interoperability is crucial during crises, allowing forces from different countries to work effortlessly together.
NATO also functions as a platform for political discussion.
History of NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established on April 4, 1949, in the aftermath of WWII.
Its founding represented a watershed point in international relations, establishing a military alliance aiming at guaranteeing peace, stability, and collective security in an increasingly polarized world.
NATO was formed primarily in response to the Soviet Union's expanding power and the spread of communism throughout Eastern Europe.
The war had decimated Western Europe's economy and left it militarily weak.
As tensions with the Soviet bloc deepened, the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations saw the need for a united front to deter further aggression.
With 32 member states, decisions require consensus, which promotes diplomacy and prevents impulsive acts.
This system promotes political cooperation and allows smaller countries to exercise influence on topics that they could not influence alone.
Furthermore, NATO enhances its members' global standing.
Countries such as Estonia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia obtain seats at key security meetings as a result of their membership in the alliance, giving them influence far beyond their size.
NATO also promotes cooperation with non-member countries and other international organizations to broaden its diplomatic reach.
Importantly, NATO makes significant investments in technical innovation, cyber defense, and intelligence collaboration.
Members gain access to cutting-edge research, collective security drills, and shared danger assessments, which few people could afford on their own.
Essentially, NATO provides its members with the ability to impact global outcomes in addition to defending their borders.
It represents unity, provides strategic influence, and assists democratic nations in advancing their common principles on a global scale.
NATO is far from obsolete, and it continues to serve as an important hub for joint security and international stability.
With that said, here's a list of the oldest NATO countries according to data from Global Firepower.
The countries listed below are the 12 NATO countries that founded the group on the 24th of August, 1949.
Oldest NATO states
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
United Kingdom
United States
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says Nato allies ‘very close' to raising defence spending target to 5%
The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said Nato allies were 'very close, almost near consensus' to an agreement to significantly raise targets for defence spending to 5% of GDP in the next decade. The Trump administration official indicated he expected the increased target to be agreed at a summit in The Hague later this month – and confirmed that the headline figure was to be split into two parts. 'This alliance, in a matter of weeks, will be committing to 5%: 3.5% in hard military and 1.5% in infrastructure and defence-related activities. That combination constitutes a real commitment,' he said. Hegseth was speaking at a press conference at Nato headquarters in Brussels after the morning session of an all-day meeting of defence ministers from the 32-country transatlantic military alliance. 'I'm very encouraged by what we heard in there,' Hegseth told reporters. 'Countries in there are well exceeding 2% and we think very close, almost near consensus, on a 5% commitment to Nato.' Nato's current target level for military spending, agreed at a summit in Cardiff in 2014, is 2% of GDP, but Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that European allies and Canada do not spend enough compared with the US. In an attempt to avoid Trump wrecking the first Nato summit of his second term, the alliance's new secretary general, Mark Rutte, proposed a 3.5% plus 1.5% target, though there is some ambiguity about the target date. Initial reports suggested that Rutte wanted allies to hit the target from 2032, though earlier this week British sources suggested the date could be 2035. Sweden's defence minister said he would like to see the target hit by 2030. Only Poland currently exceeds the 3.5% target for hard military spending at 4.32%, according to Nato figures, while the US defence budget, the largest in the alliance, amounts to 3.4% of GDP, at $967bn (£711bn). The UK spends 2.33% of GDP on its military, but has pledged to increase that to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% some time in the next parliament. Earlier this week the prime minister, Keir Starmer, declined to set a firm date for the UK achieving 3% as he unveiled a strategic defence review. Related: Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls | Martin Kettle Rutte will visit London on Monday to meet Starmer before the summit. Downing Street said the prime minister and the secretary general would 'talk about how we ensure all allies step up their defence spending now in order to respond to the threats that we face now'. Germany's defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said Berlin would need up to 60,000 additional troops to meet new Nato targets for weapons and personnel. 'We are stepping up to our responsibility as Europe's largest economy,' the minister said on Thursday. Germany, which currently spends 2.12% of GDP on defence, had been singled out by Trump as a laggard in spending, though until Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had been reluctant to be a leader in European military spending, partly due to the memories of the militarism of the second world war.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from County Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy. She made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill said, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable US. Hill, 59, is perhaps the best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and the retired general Sir Richard Barrons. She said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national after living in the US for more than 30 years. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill said, arguing that Putin saw the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia was already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she said, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill said, was that 'Russia is at war with us'. The foreign policy expert, a longtime Russia watcher, said she had first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the west,' she said. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill said events since had demonstrated 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believed that Ukraine had already been decoupled from the US relationship, Hill said, because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it came to defence, however, she said the UK could not rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the cold war and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgment in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and the defence secretary, John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey, however, and she said she had met the prime minister only once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill was not drawn on whether she had advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead: 'The advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting.' She said simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She added that unlike his close circle, Trump had 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she said. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. She noted that Reform UK had won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and that the party's leader, Nigel Farage, wanted to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) before his falling-out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she said. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steelworks and coalmines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she said, arguing that Britain needed to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill said, was about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she said. Hill said she saw that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US had contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort', she said. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that's because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' she said. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalled that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Voices from the Arab press: Trump's first 100 days in office
A weekly selection of opinions and analyses from the Arab media around the world. Asharq al-Awsat, London, May 25 For more stories from The Media Line go to In late April and early May, I was visiting the US. It was the 100th day since Donald Trump's inauguration as president of the US. Traditionally a symbolic milestone, this occasion carried far more weight than usual – for the president himself, his supporters, his critics, the American media, and much of the world. The reason was simple: the sheer volume of executive orders Trump had signed, the sweeping ambitions he laid out, and the grandiose language he employed to do so. Among the more outlandish goals he floated were making Canada the 51st state, annexing Greenland, taking control of the Panama Canal, turning Gaza into a Riviera-style tourist haven, restricting foreign nationals, deporting undocumented immigrants, attacking the ideological bent of universities, dismantling government institutions, slashing federal budgets, and downsizing various bureaucracies. But perhaps the most consequential element of Trump's early presidency has been his aggressive approach to trade policy. He imposed tariffs on imported goods from countries considered close allies, including Canada and Mexico – America's partners in long-standing economic agreements – as well as from Western European nations. The most significant tariffs, however, targeted goods from China, the largest exporter to the US. These tariffs were framed as tools to boost US government revenue, narrow the trade deficit, increase domestic manufacturing, and create jobs. The result was a profound shock to the global economy, the likes of which had not been seen in recent memory. Uncertainty spread rapidly, investments dried up, and the financial markets – especially in the US – suffered, marked by volatile swings in stocks, bonds, currencies, oil, gold, and other commodities. The American economy slipped into recession during the first quarter of the year. A question now dominates discussions among citizens, analysts, and policy-makers both inside and outside the US: Why did Trump enact such measures, and why did he do so in such unusually blunt, confrontational language, rarely seen in American diplomacy? Some observers attribute this to Trump's personality – an approach shaped by years in real estate, where asking for the moon is a tactic to secure what one truly wants. Others argue that he is acting strategically, with a small group of conservative Republicans, to pursue clearly defined short- and long-term objectives. Still others warn that Trump and his loyalist faction are seeking to reshape America into a quasi-authoritarian state – one that maintains democratic appearances, such as elections, a legislature, and courts, but is guided by centralized power. The slogan that fueled Trump's campaign – 'Make America Great Again' – continues to guide his administration's rhetoric and priorities. There is no denying that America remains the world's dominant superpower. Its economy accounts for roughly a quarter of global GDP, and the dollar serves as the backbone of international financial transactions. Wall Street is the central node of the global financial system. American universities, research institutions, and technological leadership in fields like artificial intelligence remain unrivaled. Militarily, the US has no true peer. It possesses the most advanced offensive and defensive systems, operates around 800 military installations worldwide, and maintains a constant global presence with its fleets of warships and aircraft carriers. Yet despite this, Trump and much of the Republican Party continue to frame their mission as one of restoring lost greatness. Anyone familiar with America four decades ago can attest to the changes it has undergone – shifts that are relative in nature but undeniable. America's infrastructure, in many areas, has deteriorated compared to both its own past and other nations' present. Homelessness is on the rise. But perhaps more striking is the cultural shift: a diminishing work ethic and a waning appetite for skilled trades and manual labor. Internationally, the US now faces growing industrial and technological competition from countries once considered peripheral – China,India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Brazil. For now, the challenge remains economic rather than military or political, but it could evolve. The US once contained Japan's rise in the 1980s, but China and India present a very different scale of threat. The most pressing question is whether Trump can truly reverse these domestic and global tides. Or is the task too vast, too complex, too deeply embedded in broader structural forces? Evidence suggests the latter. Consider, for example, the delicate balance between military spending and civilian investment. A nation cannot endlessly expand its defense budget without undermining infrastructure, education, healthcare, and innovation. Likewise, bringing manufacturing back to American soil would require a robust labor force – particularly in skilled and semiskilled sectors – which the US currently lacks. Labor in America costs roughly twice as much as in many other countries, and as growth accelerates, so will demand and, with it, wages. The logical solution is to increase immigration, but not from the European sources some conservatives idealize. In reality, the labor will have to come from Latin America, Africa, and Asia – regions that Trump's base is often vocally hostile toward. Immigration policy, therefore, stands at the heart of the contradiction. If domestic opposition to Trump's agenda gains traction, it could erode the coalition that brought him to power. His political alliance, which includes Evangelical Christians, hardline nationalists, and economic conservatives, is already strained. Take energy, for example: Trump promises to cut gas prices by 40% while simultaneously ramping up domestic production, including from costly oil and gas sources – two goals at odds with each other. Still, Trump has shown a knack for pragmatism and political agility. We saw this in his handling of China trade policy, where he pivoted multiple times to secure perceived wins. May brought several achievements he could claim – domestically, a reduction in drug prices, a critical issue for many Americans; internationally, preliminary efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. His trip to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, along with the agreements signed, further elevated his status at home and abroad. Yet from what I observed of America's infrastructure during my visit, it seems unlikely the country can regain its former domestic stature – at least not without sacrificing part of its expansive military footprint. Trying to rewind the clock on multiple fronts at once is an almost impossible endeavor. – Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al-Muhanna Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, May 30 The situation in Gaza and the condition of its people have descended into the unimaginable. Destruction blankets the landscape; the dead, wounded, starving, and dehydrated are everywhere, while the political world looks on in silence and the humanitarian world cries out in anguish alongside those trapped in this catastrophe. The Israeli occupation forces continue their campaign of devastation with impunity, unfazed by the growing chorus of condemnation from within Israeli society and from Jewish communities around the world which reject these violations of human rights. As the Israeli military escalates its assault onGaza, more than 100,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced into central Gaza City, fleeing the bombardment in the northern parts of the strip. Once the cultural and economic heart of Palestinian life, Gaza City has been reduced to a chaotic sprawl of rubble and makeshift tents, where people now live without access to even the most basic necessities, surrounded by mountains of debris and despair. In the midst of cries of hunger, thirst, and sickness, the specter of death looms over tens of thousands – especially children – as Israel's relentless bombing campaign continues unabated. In recent days alone, more than 1,000 Palestinians, the majority of them women and children, have been killed by airstrikes and artillery barrages. The overall death toll, not counting the thousands still buried beneath the rubble, now exceeds 53,000 in what has become a 20-month campaign of extermination. Reports from non-Arab media outlets have documented harrowing scenes of this ongoing tragedy, as Israel's intensified aggression has coincided with an ongoing blockade of desperately needed humanitarian aid. According to these accounts, every street is crowded with displaced people living among garbage heaps and pools of sewage, swarming with flies and mosquitoes. There is no clean water. No food. Nothing. Hunger gnaws at the population, and still, no meaningful assistance is reaching them. UN experts had long warned of an imminent famine engulfing the entire Gaza Strip, with UN food warehouses nearly depleted. Despite the dire circumstances, humanitarian organizations have managed to keep some community kitchens running, producing around 300,000 meals a day. Under mounting international pressure, Israel has recently permitted limited aid to trickle into Gaza following a total blockade imposed in March. But theUnited Nations continues to report that Israel is obstructing the entry of aid and that airstrikes persist even as supplies are being distributed. In the words of Secretary-General António Guterres, what has entered Gaza so far is 'only a teaspoon,' when what is needed is a deluge. The suffering is especially acute for the sick and wounded, with most hospitals in northern Gaza bombed out of operation, and the few remaining ones overwhelmed and unable to cope. This cannot be described as war; it is, by every measure, a genocide of civilians, carried out under the justification that Hamas is embedded among the population. Gaza is gasping its final breaths, and its people – joined by those of us who stand in solidarity – are left to say what the world's silence has made clear: 'No one cares if we all die. This is a world built on deception and hypocrisy, one that calls itself civilized and humane but chooses to see with only one eye.' – The Rev. Rafic Greiche, head, Egyptian Coptic Church press office Al-Ittihad, UAE, May 31 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to appoint Maj.-Gen. David Zini as the new head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), in direct defiance of the state-attorney's ruling barring him from the role, signals a looming confrontation between Israel's political-military establishment and its judiciary. This marks a new escalation in the ongoing power struggle among Israel's key institutions – revolving around Netanyahu himself, who seeks to consolidate power and impose a singular national direction under his leadership. The clash between the judiciary, the government, and Netanyahu remains unresolved, largely due to the prime minister's combative style and long-standing expertise in maneuvering around institutional restraints, blocking legislation that might limit his authority, and reshuffling priorities within his own cabinet. In response, ministers loyal to Netanyahu have adopted a clear, unified stance to neutralize any effort by the attorney-general to intervene – not only in matters of military appointments, particularly in the intelligence services, but also in the broader push by Netanyahu to politicize the judiciary. The prime minister has now escalated the confrontation to the military level, where he has already managed to suppress dissent within the defense establishment. Those who oppose his directives are either removed or pushed to resign, forcing key figures in the military to capitulate. This capitulation, however, has stirred significant unease among senior Israeli commanders, many of whom have aligned with broader protest and resistance movements in society, reinforcing speculation that the political and military balance of power may soon shift. At the center of this turmoil isGaza – its devastation, and how the war might end. Former military officials warn that Netanyahu's style of governance is not only unsustainable but dangerously destabilizing and could drive Israel toward catastrophe. Against this backdrop, the notion of ousting Netanyahu or reshaping the government has become increasingly central, particularly with parliamentary elections approaching. Netanyahu, however, sees this as an opportunity to intensify his efforts, projecting strength to demonstrate his control over Israel's direction. He argues that his trial should not proceed amid such volatility and maintains that unresolved security and political decisions – many of which remain flash points of disagreement – should be handled exclusively under his authority. Netanyahu is working to block alternative strategies from emerging at both the political and security levels, having successfully positioned himself as the indispensable figure in Israeli governance. He refuses to compromise his methods or present a conciliatory vision, claiming unapologetically that he alone is fit to lead. Meanwhile, President Isaac Herzog has failed to offer meaningful guidance or foster consensus for a national dialogue, underscoring the depth of Israel's internal divisions. These tensions are unlikely to ease before the elections, especially as Netanyahu cements his hold over the current ruling coalition. After capitulating to nearly all demands from Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu has ensured the coalition's continued stability. The opposition, led by Yair Lapid, remains fragmented and weak, lacking a unified platform. Neither Lapid nor Benny Gantz, both contenders for leadership, currently enjoys significant public support. Netanyahu continues to outmaneuver them all, sidelining rivals and consolidating control. For now, no credible challenge has emerged to his war management, even though deep questions persist over Israel's long-term objectives in Gaza. Military operations will soon give way to a more politically sensitive phase: who will govern Gaza, how Hamas will be dismantled, and what political or security framework Israel intends to impose. These unresolved issues have exposed friction within the IDF general staff over priorities and roles, fueling a sustained but quiet power struggle between the military and political echelons. Until these matters are clarified, Netanyahu remains the primary political beneficiary, with opinion polls continuing to favor him. One development that should not be overlooked is the US administration's recent reengagement with Israel's domestic political scene. Washington has begun establishing lines of communication not only with former prime minister Naftali Bennett but also with Lapid and Gantz, signaling a readiness to reassess its options should a coalition realignment become necessary. Netanyahu is acutely aware of these moves and remains determined to maintain a firm grip on power, adapting his tactics while working relentlessly to bring all internal factions under his control. – Tarek Fahmy Al-Watan, Saudi Arabia, May 27 The world is seething – angry, enraged, oppressed, provoked, and helpless – in the face of the horrors unfolding in the Gaza Strip. And yet, it seems resigned to a fate authored by the minds of brutal extremists and enabled by the Israeli war machine. Resigned, perhaps, because the US and other Western powers have not objected to Israel's warfare. This warfare uses advanced weaponry, deep-penetration bombs, and artificial intelligence not to fight terrorism, but to uproot Palestinians from their homes, level Gaza's buildings, hospitals, schools, and mosques, reduce its heritage to rubble, and erase any trace of its people's history, presence, or rights to the land. Nearly 20 months into the war, Israel articulates its objectives openly and carries them out with daily massacres – many targeting women and children. On Saturday, May 24, pediatrician Alaa Al-Najjar arrived at work at the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Yunis. Minutes later, the bodies of nine of her children were delivered to the same facility, killed by an Israeli missile. Her husband and 10th child were injured. This is but one example of how entire families have been erased. Nearly two million Gazans are now corralled into a tiny enclave in the Strip's southwest corner – effectively a concentration camp – before being killed or deported. Israeli officials do not shy away from invoking the term 'Final Solution,' echoing the Nazi terminology once used to exterminate Jews. It is no longer a secret: The plan is to annihilate the people of Gaza, to erase it from the map of Palestine. Major world powers have failed to act despite mounting evidence of a campaign that bears the hallmarks of genocide – signs they refuse to acknowledge even now. Washington and its allies have endorsed Israel's 'right to self-defense,' armed it with the world's deadliest weapons, and watched them rain down on civilians under the familiar justification that Hamas and other militants were hiding among the population. These same allies have shielded Israel at the UN Security Council and theInternational Court of Justice. When South Africa brought a genocide case against Israel, the US responded with hostility. President Donald Trump even orchestrated a smear campaign against South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, promoting a doctored video that falsely accused South Africa of committing atrocities against white farmers. When the footage was later traced to the Congo, the White House offered no correction, let alone an apology. What mattered was silencing the South African leader – truth be damned. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his inner circle ran circles around the previous American administration, exploiting its loyalty and sabotaging every proposal for postwar planning. Israel could not imagine an end to this war, with Gazans still inhabiting Gaza. Days into his presidency, Trump eagerly adopted a plan to displace Gaza's population, hailing it as a natural outcome of Israel's gains. Though he tempered his rhetoric after pushback from Arab allies, he never truly let the idea go. To bolster Trump's real estate vision for Gaza, Israeli forces are now methodically demolishing every standing structure. In his latest statements, Netanyahu emphasized his intention to continue controlling the entire Strip 'until the displacement of its residents in accordance with Trump's plan,' which, in truth, is wholly Israeli in origin. Netanyahu has also dismissed European criticism with characteristic disdain – criticism over both military conduct and Israel's blockade of humanitarian aid as famine begins to claim children and the elderly. While Germany continues to support Israel unflinchingly, other allies – Britain, France, Canada, and to a lesser extent Belgium – have begun to break their silence. London suspended trade talks and sanctioned settler-linked individuals. Paris called for revisiting the EU-Israel partnership, and all three floated recognition of a Palestinian state. But while these gestures mark a rhetorical shift, they fall far short of halting military support, and thus remain toothless in the face of a bloodthirsty war machine. After two Israeli Embassy staffers were killed in Washington, DC, by a man shouting 'Free Palestine,' Israel's propaganda apparatus seized the moment, accusing Europe of fueling antisemitism. Netanyahu equated the phrase 'Free Palestine' with the Nazi chant 'Heil Hitler.' Despite reports of friction between Netanyahu and Trump, and rumors of US pressure to secure a ceasefire and prisoner deal, the Israeli delegation walked away from Doha negotiations with nothing to show. No sign of American pressure followed. Instead, after a Trump-Netanyahu phone call, the Prime Minister's Office reported that the US president reaffirmed his support for 'securing the release of all hostages and the elimination of Hamas' – a clear signal that he rejected European objections and was doing nothing to restrain Israel. – Abdulwahab Badrakhan Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.
