Category World News

Since the ceasefire was declared on October 10, the division of Gaza into a so-called “green zone” under the control of the Israeli army and a so-called “red zone” where Palestinians have been displaced and contained has grown. The “yellow line” that separates the two is invisible.

The administration of Donald Trump’s administration has indicated that reconstruction will only be carried out in the “green zone” where Israel and its allies have been developing plans for ‘alternative safe communities’.

Although there were rumors last week that these plans were abandoned, humanitarian workers have informed me that Rafah, southern Gaza, is still the site of the first such community, and 10 more are planned along the yellow line and into the north.

If these “safe communities” are to be built, they will cause Gaza to become deadly fragmented. The intention behind the establishment of these camps is not to provide humanitarian aid, but rather to establish managed dispossession zones where Palestinians would be screened and vetted before entering. They would also be expressly prohibited from going back to the restricted and censored “red zone.”

What Israel has long desired to do in Gaza is recycled in these plans. As a UN official in charge of coordinating humanitarian operations in Palestine, I first heard about the use of “bubbles,” an initial, telling euphemism that the Israeli government had suggested.

The so-called ceasefire agreement in Gaza exhibits such a grim reality. It won’t bring peace; instead, it will sever Gaza and the Palestinian Authority’s ability to rescind. It’s more of a Gaza piece plan, in fact.

The UN Security Council approved the plan on Monday this week, granting authorization to an international stabilization force (ISF) to provide security and a board of peace to govern Gaza. What regions, however, will these forces secure? These forces cannot maintain an agreed-upon peace. The ISF would be positioned along the yellow line and would secure these newly established camps, as per maps I’ve seen of the “alternative safe communities.”

Unsurprisingly, Hamas rejected the UNSC resolution. It was obvious that the agreement’s provisions were not what had been reached. Point 17 may now be inferred in the 20-point Trump plan, which was included as an annex to the resolution: “in the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the increased aid operations, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF]Israeli army] to the ISF.” The “alternative safe communities” may become the only authorized aid delivery centers in this way, extending the Palestinians’ total blockade in Gaza.

The UNSC-endorsed plan now incorporates the deadly logic of evacuation orders that have plagued the past two years and have driven Palestinians from their homes. People who remain outside of the alternative communities, in the “red zone,” run the risk of being labeled “Hamas supporters” and thus ineligible for protection under Israel’s warped interpretation of international law, as has been demonstrated in recent days.

Official planning consistently ignores the fate of Palestinians in the “red zone.” In fact, Israeli registration laws intended to stifle criticism and check staff for compliance are preventing humanitarian organizations from being able to save lives.

The concept of contained communities is not entirely new. In Malaya in the 1950s, the British and Americans established “strategic hamlets” in Vietnam in the 1960s, and the colonial authorities in Rhodesia (present-day Zimbabwe) established “protected villages” during the so-called “counter-insurgency” in the 1970s.

In exchange for aid, civilian populations were forced and coerced into camps where they were screened. The intention was to reduce the general public’s support for colonial-era resistance organizations. It failed .

Bantustans, slang for “independent homelands” created by the apartheid regime in South Africa to enslave and control the Black population. Additionally, they failed to stop a colonial-colonial apartheid regime from crumbling.

Israel’s occupation of Gaza will remain intact and strengthened thanks to the peace plan, which was put in place rather than negotiated. The UNSC has supported a move that goes against the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) rulings regarding the occupied Palestinian territory, essentially whitewashing a massacre scene and creating a monument to impunity.

All of this occurs during a ‘ceasefire’, during which Palestinians continue to die for breaking the law created by the illegal occupation.

Countries that don’t want to sanction Israel may be relieved to revive trade and stifle public scrutiny because of this phase’s potential as the end of the conflict.

Implementing the ICJ’s decisions will require the exact accountability that the US and Israel have worked hard to avoid. New political coalitions are necessary to demand the equal application of international law while Western powers continue to undermine these institutions. This requires Palestinian-led reconstruction that ensures Palestinians are not perpetually bare to survive, and the unrestricted delivery of humanitarian aid to Palestinians wherever they are in the strip.

The international forces’ security surrounding Gaza’s gated communities would not be sufficient to erode the foundations of a so-called rules-based order. The only thing that can be done is to return to the guiding principle that has so far been ignored: the people’s unalienable right to choose their own future.

The Group of 20’s final document states that the group will work to end armed conflicts and lessen the suffering of developing nations worldwide.

In contrast to the United States’ boycott of the United States, the summit, the first G20 summit on the African continent, convened on Saturday for the first of two days with an ambitious agenda to advance progress in addressing some of the world’s poorest nations’ long-standing issues.

At a meeting point near the famed Soweto township in South Africa, where Nelson Mandela once held the post-apartheid leader, leaders and top government figures from the richest and most influential emerging economies came together to try to reach some consensus on the priorities the host nation had set out for.

In the occupied Palestinian territory, Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan, according to the adopted summit declaration.

Donald Trump, the president of the United States, has repeatedly questioned the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activities, in a sharp emphasis on the seriousness of climate change.

It added that a high level of debt is one of the barriers to inclusive growth in many developing economies because more and more people are affected by large-scale disasters, making this claim more prevalent.

In a foreseeable, timely, organized, and coordinated manner, the declaration stated that “we are committed to strengthening the implementation of the G20 common framework for debt treatments.”

Instead of just exporting raw materials, “Critical minerals should serve as a catalyst for value-addition and broad-based development.”

In his opening remarks, President Cyril Ramaphosa stated that while pursuing the integrity and prestige of the G20’s top economies, South Africa is also committed to ensuring that the group’s development priorities are reflected in its agenda.

The US, which is preventing the summit, had demanded that no declaration be made. Ramaphosa vehemently opposed that.

The US has objected to many of South Africa’s group’s priorities, including one focusing on climate change and its effects on developing nations.

Before the summit, Antonio Guterres, the head of the UN, stated, “But I think South Africa has done its part in making those things clear.”

Guterres warned that wealthy countries frequently made the concessions necessary to reach lasting global financial or climate agreements.

Trump’s illogical assertions that South Africa is engaging in racist anti-white policies and persecuting its Afrikaner white minority led to his country’s boycott of the summit.

The Trump administration’s commitment to South Africa’s G20 agenda has also been made clear since the start of the year when it has begun holding G20 summits.

In February, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized the G20’s agenda as being centered on diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change.

Rubio rebuffed his claim that he would not squander money on that.

There are “so many difficulties.”

In the weeks leading up to the main summit this weekend, the US and South Africa’s diplomatic rift grew even more, but some leaders were eager to move on while Trump’s boycott predominated the pre-talks discussions in Johannesburg and threatened to undermine the agenda.

Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, expressed regret over Trump’s absence.

“But it shouldn’t prevent us,” she said. Because of the complexity of our challenges, we have a duty to be present, engaged, and working together.

The G20, which includes the European Union, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates, is actually a group of 21 countries.

In response to global financial crises, the bloc was established in 1999 as a bridge between wealthy and poor countries. G20 members collectively account for about 85 percent of the world’s economy, 75 percent of international trade, and more than half of the world’s population, despite frequently operating in the shadow of the Group of Seven richest democracies.

China on Friday took its feud with Tokyo over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Taikachi’s recent comments on Taiwan to the United Nations, as tensions between the East Asian neighbours deepened and ties plunged to their lowest since 2023.

“If Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression,” China’s permanent representative to the UN, Fu Cong, wrote in a letter on Friday to the global body’s Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, referring to the strait that separates mainland China from self-governing Taiwan, which Beijing insists belongs to China. Beijing has not ruled out the possibility of forcibly taking Taiwan.

The diplomatic spat began earlier in November when Taikachi, who took office only in October, made remarks about how Japan would respond to a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan. Those remarks angered Beijing, which has demanded retractions, although the Japanese PM has not made one.

However, the spat has now rapidly escalated into a trade war involving businesses on both sides, and has deepened security tensions over a contested territory that has long been a flashpoint for the two countries.

Here’s what we know about the dispute:

What did Japan’s PM say about Taiwan?

While speaking to parliament on November 7, Taikachi, a longtime Taiwan supporter, said a Chinese naval blockade or other action against Taiwan could prompt a Japanese military response. The response was not typical, and Taikachi appeared to go several steps further than her predecessors, who had only in the past expressed concern about the Chinese threat to Taiwan, but had never mentioned a response.

“If it involves the use of warships and military actions, it could by all means become a survival-threatening situation,” Taikachi told parliament, responding to an opposition politician’s queries in her first parliamentary grilling.

That statement immediately raised protests from China’s foreign and defence ministries, which demanded retractions. China’s consul general in Osaka, Xue Jian, a day after, criticised the comments and appeared to make threats in a now deleted post on X, saying: “We have no choice but to cut off that dirty neck that has been lunged at us without hesitation. Are you ready?”

That post by Xue also raised anger in Japan, and some officials began calling for the diplomat’s expulsion. Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara protested to Beijing over Xue’s X message, saying it was “extremely inappropriate,” while urging China to explain. Japan’s Foreign Ministry also demanded the post be deleted. Chinese officials, meanwhile, defended the comments as coming from a personal standpoint.

On November 14, China’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Japanese ambassador and warned of a “crushing defeat” if Japan interfered with Taiwan. The following day, Japan’s Foreign Ministry also summoned the Chinese ambassador to complain about the consul’s post.

Although Taikachi told parliament three days after her controversial statement that she would avoid talking about specific scenarios going forward, she has refused to retract her comments.

How have tensions increased since?

The matter has deteriorated into a trade war of sorts. On November 14, China issued a no-travel advisory for Japan, an apparent attempt to target the country’s tourism sector, which welcomed some 7.5 million Chinese tourists between January and September this year. On November 15, three Chinese airlines offered refunds or free changes for flights planned on Japan-bound routes.

The Chinese Education Ministry also took aim at Japan’s education sector, warning Chinese students there or those planning to study in Japan about recent crimes against Chinese. Both China and Japan have recorded attacks against each other’s nationals in recent months that have prompted fears of xenophobia, but it is unclear if the attacks are linked.

Tensions are also rising around territorial disputes. Last Sunday, the Chinese coastguard announced it was patrolling areas in the East China Sea, in the waters around a group of uninhabited islands that both countries claim. Japan calls the islands the Senkaku Islands, while Beijing calls them the Diaoyu Islands. Japan, in response, condemned the brief “violation” of Japanese territorial waters by a fleet of four Chinese coastguard ships.

Over the last week, Chinese authorities have suspended the screening of at least two Japanese films and banned Japanese seafood.

Then, on Thursday, China postponed a three-way meeting with culture ministers from Japan and South Korea that was scheduled to be held in late November.

‘Symbol of defiance’

On November 18, diplomats from both sides met in Beijing for talks where the grievances were aired.

Senior Chinese official Liu Jinsong chose to wear a five-buttoned collarless suit associated with the rebellion of Chinese students against Japanese imperialism in 1919.

Japanese media have called the choice of the suit a “symbol of defiance.” They also point to videos and images from the meeting showing Liu with his hands in his pockets after the talks, saying the gesture is typically viewed as disrespectful in formal settings.

The Beijing meeting did not appear to ease the tensions, and there seems to be no sign of the impasse breaking: Chinese representatives asked for a retraction, but Japanese diplomats said Taikachi’s remarks were in line with Japan’s stance.

What is the history of Sino-Japanese tensions?

It’s a long and – especially for China – painful story. Imperial Japan occupied significant portions of China after the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), when it gained control of Taiwan and forcefully annexed Korea. In 1937, Japan launched a full-scale invasion of China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Amid strong Chinese resistance, Japan occupied parts of eastern and southern China, where it created and controlled puppet governments. The Japanese Empire’s defeat in World War II in 1945 ended its expansion bid.

The Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious in 1949 in the civil war that followed with the Kuomintang, which, along with the leader Chiang Kai-shek, fled to Taiwan to set up a parallel government. But until 1972, Japan formally recognised Taiwan as “China”.

In 1972, it finally recognised the People’s Republic of China and agreed to the “one China principle”, in effect severing formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan. However, Japan has maintained firm unofficial ties with Taiwan, including through trade.

Japan has also maintained a policy of so-called “strategic ambiguity” over how Tokyo would respond if China were to attack Taiwan — a policy of deliberate ambivalence, aimed at leaving Beijing and the rest of the world guessing over whether it would intervene militarily. The stance is similar to that of the United States, Taiwan’s most powerful ally.

How important is trade between China and Japan?

He Yongqian, a spokesperson for China’s commerce ministry, said at a regular news conference this week that trade relations between the two countries had been “severely damaged” by PM Takaichi’s comments.

China is Japan’s second-largest export market after the US, with Tokyo selling mainly industrial equipment, semiconductors and automobiles to Beijing. In 2024, China bought about $125bn worth of Japanese goods, according to the United Nations’ Comtrade database. South Korea, Japan’s third-largest export market, bought goods worth $46bn in 2024.

China is also a major buyer of Japan’s sea cucumbers and its top scallop buyer. Japanese firms, particularly seafood exporters, are worried about the effects of the spat on their businesses, according to reporting by Reuters.

Beijing is not as reliant on Japan’s economy, but Tokyo is China’s third-largest trading partner. China mainly exports electrical equipment, machinery, apparel and vehicles to Japan. Tokyo bought $152bn worth of goods from China in 2024, according to financial data website Trading Economics.

It’s not the first time Beijing has retaliated with trade. In 2023, China imposed a ban on all Japanese food imports after Tokyo released radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific. Beijing was against the move, although the UN atomic energy agency had deemed the discharge safe. That ban was lifted just on November 7, the same day Taikachi made the controversial comments.