The interviewees detail the secret methods used by the Israeli military in Gaza, including AI-based systems built to identify large numbers of potential low-ranking Hamas targets, who were then bombed in their homes at night, in the knowledge attacks would also kill their families.

The film also features first-person accounts about the destruction of neighbourhoods where the Israeli military estimated that up to 25% of residents were still sheltering in their homes, the systematic burning of civilian homes, and the killing of civilians at a food distribution site.

Several interviewees worked in a secret intelligence unit that reports directly to the office of Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu; one said their mission was to “thwart peace”.

In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.

Western states should take a common stand on banning exports from settlements they deem illegal. Israeli entities involved in the construction or financing of settlements ought to face sanctions too. EU members should unite to suspend the bloc’s association agreement with Israel. Europeans also need to convince Trump that Netanyahu is acting against US and Israeli interests by destabilising the region. For the tens of thousands of Palestinians whose livelihoods have been destroyed it is already far too late.

Forced displacement of civilians in occupied territory is considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Katz's predecessor, Yoav Gallant, over alleged war crimes, which both Israel and the United States deny.

Israeli attacks have already internally displaced the vast majority of Gaza's people following the unprecedented Hamas attack, which killed 1,221 people, according to official Israeli figures.

Israel's offensive has since claimed 73,470 lives in Gaza, with more than 1,330 since the ceasefire, according to the Gaza health ministry, which operates under Hamas.

According to the United Nations’ office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs, Israeli forces or settlers killed 76 Palestinians in the West Bank in the year to 24 July. Three Israelis were killed over the same period.

What Mr Graham and his colleagues should be most concerned about is that this ill-starred foray into the Middle East has ended up leaving the Iranian regime stronger than it was before the war, and more threatening than it was under Mr Obama’s nuclear deal, which Mr Trump tore up in one of his fits of childish pique.

The problem now is that Mr Trump has endowed Iran with a far more useful option than any nuclear device: the effective weaponisation of the Strait of Hormuz. This is a weapon of mass economic destruction of unique power. It was given satisfactory proof of use during the conflict, when not even US armed forces and a naval counter-blockade could prevent an enfeebled Tehran from taking the world economy hostage.

Whatever piece of paper the Americans and Iranians eventually sign, the ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guards will always have that potential for blackmail easily at their command. And that is why America has lost this war.

Accusing Netanyahu of leading Israel to a “diplomatic disaster much worse than Obama’s agreement” with Tehran in 2015, Liberman told reporters ahead of his weekly faction meeting in the Knesset that Israel “must inform the US that we do not accept any linkage, any connection, between the Iranian arena and the Lebanese arena.”

An Israeli who had been briefed on the deal with Iran, and who requested anonymity to discuss diplomacy, listed Israel’s main problems with the proposal:

• There are no clear answers regarding the treatment of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, and not enough curbs on Iran’s nuclear program, with the deal appearing to rely on Iranian good will.
• Instead of creating the conditions for the collapse of the Iranian government, the deal would allow funds to start flowing back into its coffers.
• The deal lays out no clear mechanism for forcing Iran to halt its support for its proxy forces. But it would mean the suspension of Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah, the militant group it is fighting in Lebanon.

The campaign—managed by Bridges Partners LLC and coordinated via Havas Media Group Germany—is part of a $900,000 budget allocated for recruiting and training over a dozen influencers.

This effort is one arm of a broader foreign influence strategy launched after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar secured a twentyfold increase in Israel’s global PR budget, raising it to $150 million in late 2024, as reported by The Jerusalem Post.

Documents also show that Israel pays $1.5 million per month to U.S. digital strategist Brad Parscale, former campaign manager for Donald Trump, to generate AI-driven pro-Israel messaging at scale.

Lest we forget, Ahmadinejad had a reputation for such ruthless crackdowns on political opponents that Amnesty International noted in 2014 that his rule had “sounded the death knell for academic freedom in Iran”.

Yet, fast forward two decades, and Netanyahu reportedly now thinks Ahmadinejad is the best person to lead Iran; the person for whom it was worth killing Khamenei, Iran’s most influential opponent of nuclear weapons.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that he has directed Israel’s military to take over 70% of Gaza’s territory.

Under a October 2025 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, Israeli forces withdrew to a demarcation line known as the “yellow line” that left them in roughly 53% of Gaza.

Hamas has also refused to disarm or decommission its weaponry, Mladenov said, a key element of the ceasefire plan upon which much of the future of Gaza rests

Human rights groups and lawyers say ‘voluntary migration’ policy amounts to ethnic cleansing

Israel’s defence minister has said he is committed to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza through large-scale migration of Palestinians as part of Israel’s long-term plans for the territory.

A hacked trove of emails reveals the revolving door of political leaders, tech billionaires, and intelligence officers.

The world order as we knew it has been overturned.

By seizing a sitting head of state and announcing direct American administration over a sovereign country – without international authorisation, coalition partners or even the language of temporariness – he crossed a boundary the post-1945 international system was meant to keep intact.

Katz's statements completely contradict the Israel Defense Forces' official claim – which it has been making ever since the West Bank operation began – that it isn't evicting the population there

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may whine all he likes about how U.S. President-elect Donald Trump made him do it. He is already selling the "I had no choice, we managed to postpone this for months" message to his ultranationalist, messianic, warmongering ruling coalition partners. But the truth is very clear: he has agreed to a deal he could and should have signed many months ago.

The deal that may – and still may not – be agreed and signed on Tuesday or Wednesday was on the table last May, again in July and practically ever since. But Mr. Netanyahu, in the name of "an existential war" that will produce a "total victory," waited for the U.S. election and then for the presidential inauguration before agreeing to a deal.

Explaining why he opposes the deal, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir specifically recalled how he previously prevented a deal by threatening Netanyahu, validating the claim that the prime minister's entire calculus was politically motivated. He never intended to end the war even when since-dismissed Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and the Israel Defense Forces stressed that all military goals had been achieved. The "strategic importance" of the Philadelphi corridor along the Gaza-Sinai border, meanwhile, was a bogus and cynical argument he had concocted.

2. Transfer of civilian population (paras. 115-119)
   In its Wall Advisory Opinion, the Court found that Israel’s settlement policy was in breach of the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that “[t]he Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
   In the Court’s view, there is nothing in the terms or the context of the provision, or in the object and purpose or the drafting history of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to suggest that that provision prohibits only the forcible transfer of parts of the occupying Power’s civilian population into the occupied territory. In the present case, there is extensive evidence of Israel’s policy of providing incentives for the relocation of Israeli individuals and businesses into the West Bank, as well as for its industrial and agricultural development by settlers. There is also evidence that Israel regularly legalizes outposts that have been established in contravention of domestic Israeli legislation and that Israel’s construction of settlements is accompanied by specially designed civilian infrastructure in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which integrates the settlements into the territory of Israel.
   In light of the above, the Court considers that the transfer by Israel of settlers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Israel’s maintenance of their presence, is contrary to the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
3. Confiscation or requisitioning of land (paras. 120-123)
   The Court further notes that the expansion of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is based on the confiscation or requisitioning of large areas of land.
   Observing that, in the present case, the public property confiscated or requisitioned for the development of Israeli settlements benefits the civilian population of settlers, to the detriment of the local Palestinian population, the Court concludes that Israel’s land policies are not in conformity with Articles 46, 52 and 55 of the Hague Regulations.