All posts by 234Radio

For thousands of Palestinian families in Gaza, the ongoing Israeli genocidal war is not just about the huge loss of life, utter destruction and relentless bombardment, but the agonising silence of missing loved ones swallowed by Israel’s detention system.

“We do not know if he is detained or a martyr,” the wife of Abdul Rahman, a young man who disappeared in January, told Al Jazeera. “We filled out many forms … but hope still exists.”

This psychological limbo was highlighted this week by the case of Hamza Adwan, a 67-year-old detainee whose family was informed of his death on Sunday – four months after he actually died in custody on September 9, 2025.

Adwan, a father of nine who had already lost two sons before the war, was arrested at a checkpoint on November 12, 2024. According to his family, he was detained despite suffering from serious health issues, including heart disease, and requiring constant medical care.

The delayed notification of his death is not an isolated incident. It reflects a systematic policy of “enforced disappearance” – creating a total void of information that the Commission of Detainees’ Affairs and the Palestinian Prisoner’s Society describe as an integral part of the ongoing “war of genocide”.

A system of uncertainty

In testimonies gathered by Al Jazeera, families described a chaotic reality where official information is often scarce or contradictory.

The father of Amro, a young man arrested in December 2024, lives in a cruel state of uncertainty. He was initially told by officials that his son had died in custody on December 13. However, released prisoners later reported seeing Amro alive after that date.

“We live on hope that he is alive and well,” the father said, despite fearing his son may have been subjected to “unimaginable torture”.

‘Legalising’ execution

The rights groups accused Israel of pursuing a policy of “slow execution” through starvation, medical neglect, and torture, aimed at making this “the deadliest phase in the history of the Palestinian prisoner movement”.

They warned that this surge in deaths coincides with Israeli political efforts to pass legislation approving the execution of Palestinian prisoners.

According to the groups, this move aims to “legalise” extrajudicial killings and transform them from actions taken outside the law into a “legitimate and codified policy”.

This legislative push targets a population where the vast majority are held without charge or trial.

By the numbers

The Commission and the Prisoner’s Society released alarming new statistics illustrating the scale of the crackdown. As of January 2026, the total number of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons has surpassed 9,300.

Most are legally in limbo, including:

• 3,385 administrative detainees, held indefinitely on secret evidence without trial.
• 1,237 detainees classified as “unlawful combatants”, a designation Israel uses to hold Palestinians from Gaza without granting them prisoner-of-war status or legal rights.

With the confirmation of Adwan’s death, the number of prisoners known to have died in Israeli custody since the war began has risen to 87, including 51 from Gaza.

ICRC denied access

Compounding the families’ distress is the paralysis of international monitors. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) confirmed to Al Jazeera that it remains completely barred from visiting Palestinian detainees.

“The ICRC has not been able to access detainees held in Israeli detention centres since October 2023,” Amani Al Naouq, the ICRC spokesperson in Gaza, told Al Jazeera.

“We are constantly receiving inquiries from families concerned about the health and safety of their loved ones,” she added.

Medics under fire

The crackdown has not spared those saving lives. On Monday, medical staff in Gaza held a protest demanding the release of 30 doctors and paramedics detained from Kamal Adwan Hospital alone.

Protesters held banners and photos of dozens of detained colleagues, prominently featuring Dr Hussam Abu Safia, the hospital director who was seized while treating patients.

“These heroes … were arrested outside the framework of international humanitarian law,” said Fares Afana, director of ambulance services. “The testimonies we hear from those released are beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”

Another medical representative at the rally warned of the lethal risks facing detainees, pointing to the fate of Dr Iyad al-Rantisi, the director of the maternity department at Kamal Adwan Hospital, who died under interrogation.

Washington and Tehran are engaged in escalating rhetoric over ongoing protests in Iran, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying his government is ready for war after United States President Donald Trump threatened military action over Iran’s crackdown on the demonstrations.

Iran’s intelligence agency said on Tuesday that US arms and explosive equipment had been seized from “militants” who hid the weapons in several homes in the country.

The statement followed earlier claims by Araghchi, in an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, that Iranian authorities had recordings of voices from abroad giving orders to “terrorist agents” to fire on police and protesters.

Iranian officials have previously accused the US and Israel of deploying “foreign agents” to the country to instigate violence.

“The internet was only cut after we confronted terrorist operations, and realised that orders were coming from outside the country,” Araghchi told Al Jazeera.

“We have recorded voices of individuals giving orders from abroad to terrorist agents, instructing them to fire at police forces and fire at demonstrators if police forces were not present. Their intention was to spread killing.”

In the interview, Araghchi responded to Washington’s recent threats of military action over the repression of the protests by saying his country was ready for war if Washington wanted “to test” it.

“If Washington wants to test the military option it has tested before, we are ready for it,” said Araghchi, adding that he hoped the US would choose “the wise option” of dialogue, while warning of “those trying to drag Washington into war in order to serve Israel’s interests”.

He said communications with US special envoy Steve Witkoff had “continued before and after the protests and are still ongoing”.

Vance, Rubio ‘presenting options’ to Trump

The office of US Vice President JD Vance said on Tuesday that top Trump administration officials were preparing diplomatic and military options to present to Trump over the ongoing protests.

“Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio together are presenting a suite of options to the president, ranging from a diplomatic approach to military actions,” said William Martin, Vance’s communications director.

The comments came as hardline US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham urged Trump to escalate pressure on Iran’s leadership, saying the “biggest prize” of his presidency would be the “demise of the Iranian state led by the Ayatollah”.

He said US military action should focus on targeting “the infrastructure that allows the killing to happen”, while stopping short of advocating a ground invasion.

Putting US troops on the ground against the battle-hardened Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would risk serious US losses.

The US last year bombed Iranian nuclear sites when it joined Israel’s 12-day war with Iran.

The statements followed Trump’s remarks on Sunday that he was considering “strong options” for Iran over its leadership’s crackdown on the demonstrations, which began last month over a plummeting currency and have widened into broader antigovernment protests, resulting in many deaths and prompting Iranian authorities to cut off the country’s internet.

The semiofficial Tasnim news agency reported on Sunday that 109 security personnel had been killed in the protests.

Authorities have not confirmed the number of demonstrators who have lost their lives, but opposition activists based outside the country said the death toll is much higher and includes hundreds of protesters.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify either figure.

US tariffs on countries that trade with Iran

In addition to the threat of military action, Trump has threatened countries engaging in trade with Iran with a 25 percent tariff on any business done with the US. 

He announced the decision in a social media post on Monday, stating that it was “final and conclusive” but offering few additional details.

The move drew a scathing response from China. In a statement issued in Washington, DC, the Chinese embassy said Beijing “firmly opposes any illicit unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction”, and will take “all necessary measures” to safeguard its interests.

As demonstrations continued and security restrictions tightened, Washington also urged its citizens in Iran to flee the country immediately via Armenia or Turkiye.

“Leave Iran now. Have a plan for departing Iran that does not rely on US government help,” the US Virtual Embassy in Iran said in a security alert issued on Tuesday.

The Iranian government has “restricted access to mobile, landline, and national internet networks”, while airlines “continue to limit or cancel flights to and from Iran” with several suspending services until Friday, the alert said.

Internet blackout continues

Iran’s internet has been shut down for more than 100 hours, the London-based cybersecurity monitor NetBlocks said, with national connectivity levels continuing to flatline at about 1 percent of ordinary levels.

Despite restrictions on phone networks, mobile phone users in Iran were briefly able to make international calls on Tuesday, The Associated Press news agency reported, although it was unable to return calls to those numbers.

The Iranians who spoke to AP said SMS text messaging was still down and that internet users in Iran could connect to government-approved websites locally, but nothing abroad.

They described seeing a heavy security presence in central Tehran, with antiriot police officers, wearing helmets and body armour, and carrying shotguns, tear gas launchers and shields posted at important intersections.

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent for one year, effective January 20, the date of his inauguration.

Trump, who first proposed such a cap on the campaign trail, floated the idea in a post on Truth Social last week, saying Americans were being “ripped off” with interest rates as high as 30 percent.

Trump returned to the idea again on Sunday, saying credit card companies had “really abused the public”.

“We’re putting a one-year cap at 10 percent. And that’s it. They know it,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One.

While there is bipartisan support in the US for lowering the costs imposed by card companies, experts have warned that Trump’s plans could also have unintended consequences, including limiting some consumers’ access to credit.

Why is Trump pledging to cap interest rates?

Americans owe credit card companies an enormous amount of money.

Outstanding credit card debt stood at $1.23 trillion as of September, up from $1.17 trillion the previous year, according to the Centre for Microeconomic Data at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

That figure does not include other common forms of debt that put pressure on household finances, such as auto loans and mortgages.

Broken down by customer, the average credit card debt was $6,555 in November, according to TransUnion, a US credit reporting agency.

As credit card debt has grown, so has the cost of borrowing.

The average interest rate stood at 22.83 percent in August, according to the Federal Reserve, up from 16.28 percent in 2020.

The cost of living is a major concern for US voters, and affordability is likely to be a key issue in midterm elections scheduled for November.

While Trump’s re-election was widely attributed to public ire over high inflation, a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with his handling of the cost of living, opinion polls suggest.

In addition to targeting credit card companies, Trump has also announced plans to lower mortgage rates and bar institutional investors from buying single-family homes.

What are the details of Trump’s plan?

Trump has disclosed few details.

For a cap on interest rates to be legally binding, Trump would need lawmakers in Congress to pass legislation, according to Brian Shearer, director of competition and regulatory policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.

“He can’t do it through executive action legally. But there are bipartisan bills in the House and Senate that he and his allies could push,” Shearer told Al Jazeera.

Trump on Monday signalled his support for the “Credit Card Competition Act of 2023”, a bipartisan bill introduced by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin and endorsed by Republican Senator Roger Marshall.

The bill targets hidden “swipe fees” levied by Visa and Mastercard on both customers and merchants.

“Everyone should support great Republican Senator Roger Marshall’s Credit Card Competition Act, in order to stop the out of control Swipe Fee ripoff. Roger is a FANTASTIC Senator!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Another proposal, the 10 Percent Credit Card Interest Rate Cap Act, was introduced last year by independent Senator Bernie Sanders and Republican Senator Josh Hawley, but has since stalled in Congress amid opposition from the credit card industry.

A major question mark about Trump’s plans is enforcement.

The Sanders-Hawley bill, for example, would rely on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission to police creditors, with violations attracting civil penalties.

Trump, however, slashed the budgets of both agencies last year.

The Trump administration is seen as particularly hostile towards the CFPB, a federal watchdog established in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis.

Russell Vought, the White House budget office director, said in October that he intends to shut down the agency.

What are the benefits of capping interest rates?

A 10 percent ceiling on credit card interest rates could save Americans $100bn annually, according to a September analysis by Shearer, who previously worked at the CFPB.

But Shearer’s analysis also warned of negative consequences for consumers. He predicted that credit card companies would reduce their lending volume for customers with “fair” to “poor” credit scores and also cut rewards programmes.

According to the same analysis, however, a 15 or 18 percent cap would not lead to any reduction in lending while delivering consumer savings of $48bn or $16bn, respectively.

Shearer has argued that credit card companies are profitable enough to absorb the losses resulting from a cap and will be able to rely on other revenue streams, including billions of dollars in processing fees charged to merchants.

“I think the proposal would save money even if it’s just for one year. I’d of course want a permanent cap, but a one-year cap still saves money, and people are hurting now with high prices, so it would provide good relief,” he said.

What do critics say about Trump’s plan?

Industry critics say a cap on interest rates would lead to customers with lower credit scores being denied access to credit.

The Electronic Payments Coalition (EPC), which represents payment networks, banks, and credit unions in the US, said on Tuesday that more than 80 percent of credit card accounts could be “closed or severely restricted” under the cap, affecting 175-190 million customers.

“A one-size-fits-all government price cap may sound appealing, but it wouldn’t help Americans – it would do the exact opposite, harming families, limiting opportunity, and weakening our economy,” EPC Executive Chairman Richard Hunt said in a statement.

The Bank Policy Institute (BPI), a nonpartisan public policy, research, and advocacy group, has also criticised proposals for a cap.

In an analysis in May, the BPI estimated that as many as two-thirds of customers who roll over their credit card balance each month – meaning they do not pay it off completely – would see their credit lines “curtailed or eliminated” under a 10 percent cap.

Has this been tried before?

Interest rate restrictions already exist in the US for certain borrowers.

Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, members of the military benefit from a 6 percent cap on interest on loans, including credit card repayments, incurred before they began active duty.

Another law, the Military Lending Act, caps the maximum interest rate on some types of consumer debt to no more than 36 percent for active-duty personnel.

Federal credit unions, not-for-profit financial institutions open to all customers, are by law subject to a ceiling on their interest rates, currently set at 18 percent.

Efforts to cap borrowing costs have also been made at the state level.

In 2011, Arkansas amended its constitution to cap credit card interest rates at 17 percent.

The results in Arkansas have been mixed, according to research.

A 2022 study in the Journal of Financial Research found that the cap had created a “credit desert” for many residents with lower credit scores.

The study also found that some residents living in counties bordering other states crossed state lines to access financial services.