🍔 Zomato Clone App – Launch Your Own Food Delivery Business in 2025! 🚀
Start your own food delivery platform like Zomato with our ready-made Zomato Clone App.
Easily connect restaurants, delivery partners, and customers in one smart app.
✅ User-friendly design
✅ Fast and secure orders
✅ 100% customizable for your brand
Make your food delivery dream a reality today! 🌟
Get a Free Demo
Mail id : sales @abservetech .com
Phone number: + 91 9222479222
#ZomatoClone #fooddeliveryapp #OnDemandApp #AppDevelopment #startup #Abservetech #usa #uk #india #australia #inland #india #greenland #Delivery #business #zomoto #southamerica #Canada #spain #russia #madurai #AppDevelopment #cloneapp #clone script #dubai #egypt #mexico #japan

Israel, Hamas and other Islamic terror groups- All at fault.
Stop The Senseless Slaughter and Starvation in Gaza.

While the world waits and watches for a settlement of the Central European crisis, Gazans die from starvation and from wounds inflicted by Israeli bombs. Much of the world has ignored the suffering there in the same way nations did during the 1930s and 1940s when the United States and its allies were indifferent to the Nazi slaughter of millions of Jews in Europe.

The Gaza Health Ministry run by Hamas estimates that since the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, 2023, the number of dead Palestinian men, women and children comes to more than 60,000, with 80 percent of them civilians. The Reuters news agency reports that food supplies are at an all-time low and starvation is at a record high. Parents are watching their children suffer horribly, slowly waste away and eventually die a painful death. Enough already.

Israel claims that it’s military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. If that is true, military officials are doing a horrible job. Israel has already decapitated Hamas leadership and killed thousands of their soldiers. The nation’s renewed aggression is an attempt to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer. Things are so horrible in Gaza that even diehard conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) have complained about Israeli policies there.

Irish support for Palestinians comes naturally and runs deep. My ancestral homeland was the first member of the European Union to endorse Palestinian statehood. The Irish fully appreciate the horrors of starvation.

The great Irish famine in the 1840s was a product of deliberate state sanctioned starvation. The Bannon and Ryan families came to America in the 19th century because of English starvation policies. There was actually plenty of food in Ireland but the Brits exported everything back home except for potatoes. When the potato blight hit and the crop failed, approximately one million Irish men, women and children died from starvation and sickness and another million left their cherished homeland to settle in America and around the world.

To make the lot of the Palestinians worse, if that’s even possible, Israel wants to launch an another offensive in Gaza City and turn it into a military enclave by removing the native population. The big difference between the Irish diaspora and the natives of Gaza is they have nowhere to go to begin a new life like my family did. Trump’s crusade to deport Mexicans and Muslims doesn’t allow any opportunities here for displaced Arabs. Even the European nations sympathetic to the Palestinian cause are under pressure from anti-immigration groups.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cruel policies create more problems than it solves with military aggression and starvation in Gaza. Israeli government policies will produce short-term gain of territory for long-term pain.

Israeli’s actions will create a new generation of terrorists which will plague the nation and its allies for a generation. Clear out Gaza for the valuable real estate that may one day house a luxury Trump casino and resort on the Mediterranean. The new lavish coastal resorts inevitably will become a target for attacks by a new generation of displaced Gazans.

Israel is a small nation surrounded by danger. Survival requires friends and allies abroad. But the country’s draconian actions have eroded the respect of Europeans and Americans who have stood by the nation in the past.

Trump broke with Netanyahu who denied the existence of starvation in the strip. But the president hasn’t done anything to follow up on his pledge to feed the hungry. Napoleon said that an army marches on its stomach. Terrorists attack on empty stomachs.

Trump’s former national security advisor John Bolton believes that more than anything else his former boss wants a Nobel Peace Prize. Give the devil his due and let him have the honor if he’s brave and caring enough to send massive supplies of food and medicine there, to stop the Israeli military offensive and to force Hamas to release the Israeli hostages. If he alleviates the crisis, the world will see him in a much brighter light.

If Trump really wants to stop the senseless civilian slaughter and starvation and earn the great honor, he must turn the screws on Netanyahu. The ball is in Trump’s court.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
South Sudan ‘approves’ Israeli plan to send Gazans to country-
South Sudan’s cabinet has agreed to receive Palestinians from the Gaza Strip following a request from Israel, The Telegraph has learnt.

A foreign ministry official in Juba said the government had approved the request as part of a deal which also involved the US and United Arab Emirates.

The move comes as Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is attempting to revive the controversial idea of “voluntary” resettlement of civilians from the enclave.

On Wednesday, South Sudan described claims of a deal as “baseless” and not reflective of official government policy.

However, it has been claimed that the government has in fact agreed to work with Israel, raising the potential of a serious row from countries who oppose any suggestion of resettlement of Gazans.
The UAE would provide accompanying funding, which would be an economic lifeline for one of the poorest countries on Earth, the foreign ministry official said.

Meanwhile, America would lift sanctions on South Sudan, and Israel would invest in health and education.

“The South Sudanese land is enough to host more people from different nations, and also it’s good for the South Sudanese to open wide the window for external business to grow the economy,” the official said.

He added that the deal had been agreed by the cabinet but faced stiff opposition elsewhere, meaning the government was unwilling to acknowledge it.

“This kind of deal is not easy for South Sudanese to understand right now and also we have a very complex political situation in South Sudan,” he said.

One MP told The Telegraph that the matter had been discussed in Parliament but rejected by a majority of parliamentarians.

He said: “I myself reject it because South Sudan is a very young country. We are not able to feed ourselves, how can we get more people to live with us?

“In the next meeting we are going to reject it again from the Parliament. This idea is unacceptable to us.”
The debate came as Sharren Haskel, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, arrived in Juba to sign a “memorandum of understanding on bilateral consultations”.

Moving them from one land already ravaged by war and famine to another would only amplify that concern.

‘Voluntary’ relocation
News of the possible South Sudan deal broke after Mr Netanyahu appeared on Israeli television to revive discussion about relocating civilians from the Strip.

The idea was first proposed by Donald Trump, the US president, in February. He said the population should be removed and Gaza completely redeveloped to become part of what he envisaged as a “riviera” in the Middle East.

The Israeli government has floated the idea of relocation, but always said that it should be voluntary.

“Give them the opportunity to leave, first of all, combat zones, and generally to leave the territory, if they want,” said Mr Netanyahu on Tuesday, in comments that did not mention South Sudan.

“We will allow this, first of all within Gaza during the fighting, and we will certainly allow them to leave Gaza as well.”

Numerous foreign capitals and international bodies have previously warned against the plan, with some questioning if resettlement from Gaza could be considered genuinely voluntary, given the catastrophic damage to infrastructure and the dire humanitarian situation.

They have also voiced fears that voluntarily displaced Palestinians would not be allowed to return, citing comments made by Mr Netanyahu’s ultra-nationalist coalition partners calling for the re-establishment of Jewish settlements in Gaza.
A feature of the recent Operation Gideon’s Chariots, Israel’s new ground offensive, has been the wide-scale demolition of residential buildings. It is likely the same tactic will be used in the upcoming assault on Gaza City, confirmed last week.

Forcibly displacing a population could be considered a war crime.

Investigating feasibility
The Associated Press reported multiple sources as confirming the current talks between Israel and South Sudan.

Joe Szlavik, founder of a US lobbying company working for South Sudan, also said that he had been briefed by officials on the talks.

He said an Israeli delegation planned to visit the country to investigate the feasibility of setting up camps.

Ms Haskel’s trip is the first official visit to South Sudan by an Israeli government representative.

In a statement, she said: “While the international community is focused solely on Gaza, South Sudan is facing a real humanitarian crisis and the threat of genuine famine.”

Obvious destinations
As neighbours with formal relations with Israel, Egypt and Jordan would be the most obvious destinations for any departing Palestinians.

However, both have staunchly opposed any such scheme, despite significant pressure from Mr Trump.

Israel is said to have held talks with Indonesia, Libya, Ethiopia, Somalia and Somaliland about the possibility of accepting Gazans, but it was reported that these had not borne fruit.

South Sudan is in desperate need of foreign cash to help itself rebuild after years of instability and war with Sudan, its Arab-dominated neighbor.

It has been reported that they accepted help from Israel’s Mossad spy agency during their civil war with Khartoum.

Emigration inevitable
South Sudan also wants Mr Trump to lift the US travel ban on the country.

But Egypt has reportedly lobbied South Sudan not to co

Is the World and mainstream media Rewarding Hamas for Its Atrocities and condemning Israel for defending itself? (Part3)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HAMAS SURRENDER NOW- WAR GOES ON UNTIL HAMAS SURRENDER.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no difference as to what happened during the WW2 where Germany and Japan surrendered after facing defeat in all corners. So Hamas needs to surrender and release all hostages dead or alive.
While the comparison to the surrender of Germany and Japan in World War II is a powerful one, the situations are fundamentally different, which is a key reason why a call for Hamas's unconditional surrender is not a universally adopted or practical demand.

Here's a breakdown of the key differences:

1. The Nature of the Opponents:

WWII: Germany and Japan were nation-states with centralized governments, professional armies, and vast industrial and military complexes. Their surrender involved a formal, legal process by their official governments and military high commands. The Allied powers were able to occupy their territory, dismantle their governments, and oversee the demobilization of their armies.

Hamas: Hamas is not a nation-state. It's a militant and political organization operating within the Gaza Strip, a territory with a civilian population of over two million people. It is a decentralized, ideologically driven group with a mix of military and political wings. The idea of a formal, legal "surrender" in the same vein as a nation-state is not applicable. Even if the top leadership were to surrender, it's highly probable that a new generation of fighters would emerge, as has been the case with many other militant groups.

2. The Goals of the Conflict:

WWII: The Allied powers' stated goal was the "unconditional surrender" of the Axis powers, a principle declared at the Casablanca Conference. The goal was to eliminate the regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and reshape the post-war world order. The war was total, aimed at the complete defeat and occupation of the enemy.

Israel-Hamas Conflict: Israel's stated goals are to dismantle Hamas's military and governing capabilities and to bring the hostages home. The international community, however, has different and often competing objectives. Many nations are more focused on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the long-term prospects for a two-state solution. A call for a permanent ceasefire and the release of hostages, which is a more limited goal than a total surrender, is a reflection of these priorities. Some believe a complete military defeat of Hamas could lead to a power vacuum and greater instability.

3. The Leverage and Bargaining Position:

WWII: By the time of their surrender, Germany and Japan were militarily and economically defeated, with their homelands facing invasion. They had little to no leverage. The Allied powers' demands were backed by overwhelming military force and the clear prospect of total annihilation.

Hamas: Despite being a much smaller and less powerful entity, Hamas retains significant leverage. The hostages are its primary bargaining chip. By holding them, Hamas can influence Israeli policy, secure the release of Palestinian prisoners, and attract international attention to the Palestinian cause. The demand for an unconditional surrender would mean giving up this leverage, which Hamas leadership has no incentive to do.

4. The Political Context:

WWII: The war was a clear-cut case of aggression and defense. The Nazi and Imperial Japanese regimes had committed well-documented war crimes on a massive scale, and their surrender was a necessary condition for a new, peaceful world order.

Israel-Hamas Conflict: This conflict is part of a much longer, more complex, and deeply entrenched political dispute. While Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by many countries and its actions on October 7th are widely condemned, many in the Arab world and the Global South view the conflict through the lens of a long-standing Israeli occupation. They may not see Hamas's actions as the sole cause of the conflict and may be reluctant to call for its unconditional surrender without addressing the broader political issues.

In conclusion, while the desire for a swift and decisive end to the violence is understandable, applying the "WWII model" of unconditional surrender to the current conflict is not practical. The nature of Hamas as an organization, the differing objectives of the various parties involved, the strategic leverage provided by the hostages, and the complex political history of the region all make it a far more intractable situation than a traditional war between nation-states.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hamas as with Germany and Japan were militarily and economically defeated, with their homelands facing invasion.
The claim that Hamas is in the same position as Germany and Japan in World War II—militarily and economically defeated, with their homelands facing invasion—is a powerful but ultimately inaccurate comparison.
While Israel's military campaign has inflicted massive damage on Gaza and severely degraded Hamas's capabilities, the situation is far more complex and does not align with the historical precedent of a nation-state's total defeat.

Here's a detailed look at why the comparison is flawed:
1. Military and Economic Status:

Germany and Japan in WWII: By 1945, both countries' industrial bases were in ruins, their armies were decimated, and their navies and air forces had been largely destroyed. Their homelands were being directly invaded and occupied by overwhelming Allied forces. They were left with no ability to continue the fight.

Hamas: Israel's invasion of Gaza has caused widespread destruction of infrastructure and resulted in a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. However, while Hamas's military capabilities have been degraded, they have not been completely eliminated. The group still retains the ability to launch attacks, and its command and control structure, though fractured, has not been fully dismantled. The organization is a guerrilla force, not a conventional army, and its military assets are often hidden in an extensive network of tunnels, which makes a "total defeat" a near-impossible objective.

2. The Concept of "Homeland" and "Invasion":
WWII: Germany and Japan were sovereign nation-states. The invasion and occupation of their territory by the Allied powers meant the end of their governments and the establishment of new, foreign-controlled administrations.

Hamas: Hamas is not a nation-state. Its "homeland" is the Gaza Strip, a small, densely populated territory under a long-standing Israeli and Egyptian blockade. Israel's invasion of Gaza is not a conventional invasion of a sovereign country but a military operation in a territory where it has had significant influence and control for decades. Furthermore, a full military occupation of Gaza is not a stated goal of the international community and is fraught with political, humanitarian, and strategic problems for Israel.

3. The Element of Leverage:
WWII: By the end of the war, Germany and Japan had no leverage. They could not use a civilian population, hostages, or any other strategic asset to bargain with the Allies. Their only option was unconditional surrender.

Hamas: The hostages remain Hamas's most powerful bargaining tool. Hamas has used the hostages to secure temporary ceasefires and prisoner exchanges. As long as they hold hostages, dead or alive, they retain leverage over Israel and its allies. An unconditional surrender would mean giving up this leverage, which, from their perspective, would be a complete and uncompensated defeat.

4. The Political and Ideological Context:
WWII: The defeat of Germany and Japan was a global consensus. Their ideologies were universally condemned, and the international community was united in its desire to see them dismantled.

Hamas: The international community is deeply divided. While many condemn Hamas's actions, many also see the conflict through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, a protracted dispute over land and self-determination. For these groups, a call for Hamas's unconditional surrender is seen as ignoring the broader context of the conflict and the plight of the Palestinian people. This division prevents a unified international front that could pressure Hamas into a surrender.

In conclusion, while Israel has inflicted immense military and economic damage on Hamas and the Gaza Strip, the situation is not comparable to the total defeat and occupation of Germany and Japan. Hamas's guerrilla tactics, its strategic use of hostages, and the lack of a unified international political will to force a surrender all distinguish this conflict from the end of World War II.

Is the World and mainstream media Rewarding Hamas for Its Atrocities and condemning Israel for defending itself? (Part1)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HAMAS SURRENDER NOW- WAR GOES ON UNTIL HAMAS SURRENDER.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The claim that the world and mainstream media are "rewarding Hamas" and "condemning Israel for defending itself" is a highly contentious issue with various perspectives. An analysis of global media coverage and international responses reveals a complex landscape.

Regarding media coverage:
Accusations of Bias: There are widespread and often opposing accusations of bias in media coverage of the conflict. Some critics argue that Western mainstream media often downplays Palestinian suffering and disproportionately focuses on Israeli narratives, while others contend that the media is overly critical of Israel and presents a one-sided view that favors the Palestinian cause.

Differing Terminology: The language used by media outlets is a frequent point of contention. Some outlets have been criticized for using more emotive language like "massacre" or "slaughter" when describing Israeli casualties, but not when reporting on Palestinian deaths.

Access and Censorship: Israel has been criticized for imposing restrictions on international journalists' access to Gaza, leading many news organizations to rely on local Palestinian journalists and freelancers. This has raised concerns about the ability of the media to provide a complete and unfiltered picture of events.

Focus on Humanitarian Crisis: A significant portion of recent media coverage has focused on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including reports of starvation and the high number of civilian casualties. This has led to international condemnation of Israel's military actions and calls for a ceasefire.

Regarding international responses:
Initial Condemnation of Hamas: Following the initial attacks by Hamas, many countries, particularly Western nations, strongly condemned the actions of Hamas, expressed solidarity with Israel, and affirmed Israel's right to self-defense.

Growing Criticism of Israel: As the conflict has progressed, a growing number of countries and international bodies have become increasingly critical of Israel's military campaign. This criticism is often linked to the high number of Palestinian casualties, the humanitarian situation, and Israeli military plans for Gaza.

Calls for a Ceasefire: The United Nations and many countries have repeatedly called for a ceasefire or a humanitarian pause. These calls are often driven by concerns about civilian lives and the unfolding humanitarian crisis.

Lack of a Unified "International Community": It's important to note that there isn't a single "international community" with a unified voice. Responses to the conflict vary widely, with different countries and organizations taking diverse positions based on their political alignments, historical ties, and domestic public opinion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The question of why various groups are not calling for Hamas to surrender and release all hostages, dead or alive, is complex and has multiple facets. While many countries and international bodies have indeed made such calls, there are several reasons why this is not a universally adopted or consistently emphasized position.

1. The "All or Nothing" Stance of the Parties Involved:
Hamas's Position: Hamas has consistently stated that a full release of hostages is contingent on a permanent ceasefire, the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and the release of a large number of Palestinian prisoners. For Hamas, the hostages are a primary bargaining chip to achieve its political and military objectives. From its perspective, surrendering and releasing hostages without these concessions would be a complete loss and negate its strategic advantage.

Israel's Position: Israel's stated war aims have been the destruction of Hamas's military and governing capabilities and the return of all hostages. However, some critics argue that Israel's actions, such as rejecting certain ceasefire proposals and expanding military operations, have not always prioritized the return of hostages, suggesting that other goals like territorial control or the "dismantling" of Hamas are also major drivers. The Israeli government has been criticized for not accepting deals that would secure hostage release in exchange for ending military operations, with some claiming that this demonstrates that the return of hostages is not its central priority.

2. The Role of Ceasefire Negotiations:
Mediated Diplomacy: The focus of many international actors, including the United States, Qatar, and Egypt, has been on brokering a ceasefire deal that includes a phased release of hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and a temporary pause in fighting. This approach is seen as a more realistic path to securing the hostages' release than demanding an unconditional surrender, which Hamas has repeatedly rejected. The goal is to create a pathway for de-escalation and humanitarian aid, not to achieve a total military victory for one side.

Hamas's Perceived Leverage: For many international observers, a call for an unconditional surrender is seen as an unrealistic demand that would likely be ignored by Hamas. This is because the group views the hostages as its most valuable asset in the negotiation process. Many believe that such a call would not only be ineffective but could also prolong the conflict and endanger the lives of the remaining hostages.

3. Political and Public Opinion Dynamics:
Diverse Views on the Conflict: The international community is not a monolith. Different countries have different relationships with Israel and the Palestinians, and their domestic political landscapes shape their official positions. Many countries that are critical of Israel's military actions are more inclined to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, which they believe is the only way to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, rather than focusing solely on a call for Hamas's surrender.

Differing Objectives: While many people around the world want to see the hostages released, many also believe that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the long-term conflict are the more pressing issues. As a result, their calls for action are focused on a cessation of hostilities and the delivery of aid, rather than a demand for Hamas's surrender. Some observers believe that Hamas's actions, while condemned, have strategically brought the Palestinian cause back to the forefront of global conversation, which for some is a more significant development than the group's surrender.

In short, while calls for Hamas to release the hostages are indeed made by many, the absence of a universal call for unconditional surrender is a reflection of the complex realities on the ground, the perceived futility of such a demand, the strategic priorities of the key actors, and the diverse perspectives within the international community regarding the conflict.

“Sky Is NOT The Limit”: Su-57, S-500, R-37M In Spotlight As IAF Thrilled By Super Success Of S-400 & BrahMos (Part2)

Let us look at the two Russia-origin systems.

S-400 Missile System “Sudarshan Chakra”
The S-400 is a Russian mobile SAM system developed in the 1990s by Russia’s NPO Almaz as an upgrade to the S-300 family of missiles.

The S-400 joined the Russian armed forces in 2007. The system is complemented by its successor, the S-500. The S-400 system has four radars and four sets of missiles covering different ranges and vertical bubbles.

The maximum target detection range is 600 kilometres, and targets can be engaged as far as 400 kilometres. The five S-400 batteries contracted by India in 2018 cost $5.43 billion, including reserve missiles.

All the sub-units are data-linked and controlled by a central command and control system with sufficient redundancy. The system is capable of layered defence and integrates with other Indian air defences.

One system can control 72 launchers, with a maximum of 384 missiles. All missiles are equipped with directed explosion warheads, which increases the probability of complete destruction of aerial targets.

The system is designed to destroy aircraft, cruise, and ballistic missiles, and can also be used against ground targets. It can engage targets up to 17,000 km/h or Mach 14. It can intercept low-flying cruise missiles at a range of about 40 km due to the line-of-sight requirement. The anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capabilities of the S-400 system are near the maximum allowed under the (now void) Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The number of simultaneously engaged targets by the full system is 36.

The system ground mobility speed is close to 60 km/h on roads and 25 km/h cross-country. It takes 5 minutes to be operational and fire when ordered while driving. Otherwise, the system response time is just 10 seconds. The time between major overhauls is 10,000 hours. The Service life is at least 20 years.

In Russia, the system was made operational around Moscow in 2007. Russia reportedly deployed S-400 in Syria. The system has been widely used in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and it is claimed to have shot down many aircraft.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has reportedly used Western weapons, mainly U.S.-made ATACMS missiles, to hit S-400 units on the ground.

Belarus has unspecified numbers of S-400 units. Deliveries to China, of the six batteries ordered, began in January 2018. Four batteries consisting of 36 fire units and 192 or more missiles were delivered to Turkey.

Algeria is another operator. Some other countries, like Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Serbia, have also shown interest. South Korea is developing the KM-SAM, a medium-range SAM system based on technology from S-400 missiles, with assistance from NPO Almaz.

Three of the five batteries have arrived in India. India took deliveries despite the American threat of CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act).

The remaining two are expected in 2025/26. The recent conflict has revealed the rough location of two systems, one each in Punjab and Gujarat. As per open sources, the third is somewhere in the east. The systems have been tested in various Indian military exercises.

BrahMos
The BrahMos is a long-range ramjet supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from land, submarines, ships, and fighter aircraft. It is a joint venture between the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Russian Federation’s NPO Mashinostroyeniya, which together have formed BrahMos Aerospace.

The missile is based on Russian P-800 Oniks. The name BrahMos is a portmanteau formed from the names of two rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskva of Russia. India holds 50.5 percent share of the joint venture. 75 percent of the missile is manufactured in India and there are plans to increase this to 85 percent.

Large numbers of land-launched, ship-launched as well as air-launched versions have been inducted and are in service with the Indian armed forces.

The missile guidance has been developed by BrahMos Aerospace. In 2016, after India became a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), India and Russia gradually increased the range of the missile to 800 km. The latest deliveries to the Indian Navy are of this type.

The cruise missile has anti-ship and land-attack roles, and has been in service since June 2007. The other operator is the Philippine Marine Corps. The unit cost is around $ 3.5 million.

The extended range variant costs around $4.85 million. Many futuristic variants are evolving. The BrahMos-A is a modified air-launched variant of the missile with a reduced size and weight (2.55 tons). It has a range of 500 km when launched from Su-30 MKI, and it can carry only one BrahMos missile.

50 IAF SU-30MKI were modified to carry the BrahMos-A missile. Smaller-sized variants like BrahMos-NG could be carried on more types of aircraft, even on LCA. Additionally, the BrahMos-NG will have an AESA radar rather than the current mechanically scanned one.

The Sukhoi Su-30MKI will carry three NG missiles, while other IAF fighters will carry one. The BrahMos-NG will be ready by the end of 2025. BrahMos-II will be a hypersonic cruise missile. A UCAV variant is planned.

This solid propellant missile can carry a 200–300 kg warhead that could be nuclear or conventional semi-armour-piercing. Max operational ranges are up to 8-900 kilometres. Export variants are currently restricted to 290 kilometres.

The BrahMos is generally considered the world’s fastest supersonic cruise missile. Currently, the missile speed is Mach 3. Later variants will be hypersonic (M 5+). The missile is very accurate with a CEP of less than one metre.

BrahMos was first test-fired on 12 June 2001 from the Integrated Test Range (ITR), Chandipur, in a vertical launch configuration. The September 2010 test of BrahMos created a world record for being the first cruise missile to be tested at supersonic speeds in a steep-dive mode.

BrahMos was tested with an Indian seeker for the first time in March 2018, and was tested with an India-developed propulsion system, airframe, and power supply in September 2019. On 30 September 2020, India successfully test-fired an extended-range BrahMos, offering a range of around 350 km, at speeds up to Mach 2.8.

The submarine-launched variant of BrahMos was test-fired successfully for the first time from a submerged pontoon on 20 March 2013. Even BrahMos Block III land-attack variants are operational. There are plans to have missiles with a range of 1500 km or more.

BrahMos is operationally deployed in large numbers by the three services. Additional missile orders have been recently placed for extended-range variants.

The Philippines has placed a substantial order for their services, and deliveries began in 2024. Russia, too, has plans to buy many missiles. Brazil has shown interest in the missile system. Vietnam and Indonesia have already signed deals.

Sky Is Not The Limit
Resolute political will, choice of targets, weapon matching and accuracy, actionable intelligence, strong Indian air defences, and great IAF professionals. and hitting strategic targets in depth were the clear clinchers.

Aerospace has become the primary means of prosecuting war. India-Russia relations are time-tested. Nearly 60 percent of IAF aircraft are of Russian origin.

Russian platforms and weapons with the Indian armed forces have performed exceedingly well for many decades, since the MiG-21s of the 1960s. The S-400 and Su-30MKI-BrahMos combination have excelled in Op Sindoor.

Could S-500 (600 km) be the next acquisition? Will India select the Su-57 fifth-generation aircraft and Make in India? Can Russia help accelerate the Indian nuclear submarine program? Should India acquire the “AWACS Killer” Russian R-37M AAM and collaborate on developing futuristic long-range aerial missiles?

Should there be more work together on the Su-30MKI upgrade? Can the two enter into a joint venture for Kamikaze drones required by both sides in large numbers, and India can help scale up production?

The Sky is NO more the limit!

Al Jazeera: Terrorists Or Journalists? All You Want To Know About Qatar’s Global Media Organization.
Al Jazeera said on Sunday that five of its journalists were killed in an Israeli strike, including a renowned reporter.

The Israeli military acknowledged in a statement targeting correspondent Anas al-Sharif, accusing him of being a “terrorist” affiliated with Hamas.

Al Jazeera said four others had been killed: correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh, along with camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, and Moamen Aliwa.

Here are five things to know about the Arab media giant, which has been at odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration since well before Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza started on October 7.

Founded By Decree
Al Jazeera was launched in Doha in 1996 by a decree issued by the former emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani.

While stipulating that the channel should be “totally independent of all influences”, the decree also provided a $150-million government loan for “setting it up and covering its operating costs for five years”.

Though Al Jazeera Media Network is a private business, the broadcaster has retained some Qatari government funding, which its critics often cite when questioning its editorial independence from Doha.

The broadcaster immediately emerged as a rival to international media giants but its no-holds-barred coverage as the self-described “first independent news channel in the Arab world” also sparked a series of legal disputes in the region in its early years.

Global Reach
The channel says it operates in 95 countries with 70 bureaus and a staff of 3,000 employees, with a global audience of more than 430 million homes.

Al Jazeera, the network’s initial Arabic-language news channel, was joined in 2006 by an English service.

Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera English, the network’s flagship channels, have distinct editorial lines, with the Arabic-language channel more frequently facing criticism from within the region.

The network also includes a live public affairs channel, Al Jazeera Mubasher, and its digital-only AJ+ channel, which targets young audiences.

Airtime For Dissidents
When a wave of popular uprisings swept the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, Al Jazeera was seen as a key shaper of public opinion because it gave unprecedented airtime to opposition groups, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood.

The network has repeatedly rejected any accusation of bias in its coverage.

Al Jazeera faced pressure from governments across the region and became the focus of a feud between Cairo and Doha after the 2013 military ouster of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi.

Cairo considered it a mouthpiece for Morsi’s Islamist movement and Egyptian authorities arrested three Al Jazeera journalists, including Australian Peter Greste, provoking international condemnation.
Regional Blockade
In 2017, Qatar’s neighbours, led by Saudi Arabia, imposed a three-year diplomatic and economic blockade on the Gulf monarchy.

As well as demanding Qatar cut ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and its sister organisation Hamas, and downgrade relations with Iran, the boycotting states also called for the closure of Al Jazeera and all its affiliates.

The channel called the pressure an attempt to “silence freedom of expression”.

On The Ground In Gaza
Since war broke out in the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023, triggered by Hamas’s attack on Israel, Al Jazeera has aired continuous on-the-ground reporting of Israel’s military campaign and its consequences.

Its broadcasts have been among the most watched in the Middle East amid widespread disenchantment with Western media coverage regarded as skewed in Israel’s favour.

In April 2024, Netanyahu called Al Jazeera a “terrorist channel”, saying he would “act immediately” to halt its activities after parliament passed a law allowing the banning of media broadcasts deemed harmful to national security.

The law was used to ban Al Jazeera from broadcasting from Israel as of May 5, 2024, and to close its offices in the country in a temporary but renewable measure. Israel later moved to revoke the press credentials of some Al Jazeera journalists.

The network has decried a “criminal” violation of “the human right to access information”.

Since the start of the Gaza war, Al Jazeera’s office in the besieged Palestinian territory has been bombed, and a number of its staff have been killed.

Israel has repeatedly accused Al Jazeera journalists, including those killed or injured in strikes, of “terrorism” links or collaborating with Hamas.

Al Jazeera has fiercely denied the allegations and accused Israel of systematically targeting its employees in the Gaza Strip.

"Do you know that honey never spoils? Archaeologists have found pots of honey in ancient Egyptian tombs that are over 3,000 years old and still perfectly edible!"

Opinion - Netanyahu’s West Bank miscalculation is uniting the Arab world on Palestine.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long thrived on regional fragmentation, most recently cutting normalization deals, known as the Abraham Accords, with Arab states while sidelining the Palestinian issue. But that strategy is collapsing.

In a historic miscalculation, Netanyahu’s refusal to allow Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan and a delegation of Arab foreign ministers to visit the West Bank has provoked outrage and accelerated Arab unity behind the formal recognition of a Palestinian state.

To be clear, Hamas bears full responsibility for its brutal Oct. 7 terrorist attacks against Israel that ignited the Gaza War. Hamas’s continued rejection of U.S.-backed cease-fire proposals has prolonged the problem. At the same time, Netanyahu’s response — marked by the indiscriminate killing of civilians and disregard for international law — has further isolated Israel on the world stage.

Prince Faisal’s visit would have marked the first official Saudi stop in Palestinian territory since 1967. Coordinated by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, the delegation aimed to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and send a clear diplomatic message that the Palestinian cause is a central priority for the Arab and Muslim world. Instead, Netanyahu’s government denied the group entry, labeling the trip “provocative.”

The message received in the region was very different: Israeli leadership is so entrenched in its rejection of Palestinian statehood that it would rather slam doors on long-standing Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan than allow symbolic gestures of solidarity. Palestinian officials called the move dangerous and unprecedented. Countries like the UAE — recently aligned with Netanyahu under the Abraham Accords — joined the delegation, underscoring a notable shift in Arab consensus.

This is not an isolated diplomatic fallout. It’s a turning point — and Saudi Arabia is leading the change. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman embodies the heart and pulse of the Middle East. His government, once rumored to be nearing normalization with Israel, has taken a firm stance: no recognition without Palestinian statehood.

Not only did the prince push the blocked West Bank visit, but Saudi Arabia is now co-chairing a high-level international conference with France in June to revive the two-state solution.

This French-Saudi coordination is not merely symbolic — it reflects the emergence of a serious diplomatic front pushing for global recognition of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron has called such recognition both a moral duty and a political necessity. The upcoming summit, supported by Arab League consensus and broader international momentum, could see a growing number of countries moving in that direction. Recent recognitions of Palestine by Norway, Spain and Ireland may be just the beginning.

The Arab world has come full circle. Where once there was hesitancy, fragmentation and quiet diplomacy, now there is relative cohesion and conviction. The Palestinian issue is back at the forefront — not because of an intifada or pressure from Western capitals, but because of regional realignment rooted in shared values and strategic recalibration. Netanyahu, who once claimed victory in separating Israel’s relations with Arab states from the Palestinian question, now faces a wall of Arab opposition.

Across Arab capitals, young people are increasingly vocal and engaged. They see the horrific images from Gaza in real time. Their identification with the Palestinian cause is not inherited but lived. Their message to governments is clear: Enough symbolism, take action.

Bin Salman has made clear that normalization with Israel is off the table without meaningful progress on Palestinian statehood. The Saudi calculus is realistic and strategic: Long-term regional stability depends on resolving the Palestinian question, not ignoring it.

This realignment is reshaping the global conversation, and Washington must take note. In this new era, Arab states are not waiting for U.S. mediation or Israeli approval — they are leading with their own initiatives, backed by global partners. Whether the Trump administration supports these moves or not, the facts on the ground are shifting.

Netanyahu’s defiance is isolating Israel at a time when it needs allies. Refusing entry to foreign ministers attempting peaceful diplomacy doesn’t project strength — it reveals fear. And in the process, it is galvanizing exactly what Netanyahu sought to avoid.

A few years ago, the regional narrative focused on normalization. Today, it’s about liberation. The next few months will be critical. If the French-Saudi summit catalyzes broader international recognition of Palestine, Netanyahu’s strategy will be seen not as visionary but as the catalyst for a historic reversal.

Arab leaders are no longer divided or deferring. They are vocal, aligned and following bin Salman’s lead. The road to lasting peace runs through a two-state solution, which begins with recognition of a Palestinian state.

Israelis and Palestinians deserve peace and security, not endless conflict. The world should help deliver this.

A convoy of buses and private cars departed for Gaza from Tunisia’s capital Monday as part of efforts to spotlight Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid to the territory, even as Israeli authorities stopped a high-profile flotilla from landing there.

The overland effort — organized independently but moved up to coincide with the flotilla — is made up of activists, lawyers and medical professionals from North Africa. It plans to traverse Tunisia, Libya and Egypt before reaching Rafah, the border crossing with Egypt that has remained largely closed since Israel’s military took control of the Gaza side in May 2024.

The Tunisian civil society groups behind the convoy said their aim is to demand “the immediate lifting of the unjust siege on the strip.” They asserted that Arab governments haven’t pushed enough to end the 20-month war between Israel and Hamas.

After a 2½-month blockade of Gaza aimed at pressuring Hamas, Israel started allowing in some basic aid last month. Experts, however, have warned of famine in the territory of over 2 million people unless the blockade is lifted and Israel ends its military offensive.
The convoy set off as the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, an aid ship that set sail from Sicily earlier this month, was seized by Israeli forces in what activists said were international waters. Those aboard, including Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, were detained.

The overland convoy drew widespread attention in Tunisia and Algeria, where it began Sunday, with some people waving Palestinian flags and chanting in support of the people of Gaza.

"This convoy speaks directly to our people in Gaza and says, ‘You are not alone. We share your pain and suffering,’" Yahia Sarri, one of the convoy's Algerian organizers, wrote on social media.

The North African activists do not expect their convoy to be allowed into Gaza. Regardless, it provides “a message of challenge and will,” said Saher al-Masri, a Tunis-based Palestinian activist.

Israel and Egypt have imposed varying degrees of blockade on Gaza since Hamas seized power from rival Palestinian forces in 2007. Israel says the blockade is needed to prevent Hamas from importing arms, while critics say it amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s population.

The convoy plans to gather supporters in towns south of Tunis before crossing into Libya, where clashes between rival militias have turned deadlier in recent months. Organizers said they planned the land crossings with relevant authorities leading up to the convoy’s departure.

450+ Fighter Jets Destroyed In Surprise Attack! Amid Ukraine’s 34% Claims, Here’s How IAF Stunned The World With Its Air Raids.

The June 1 Ukrainian drone strikes on four Russian airfields might have knocked out 34% of the Russian heavy bomber fleet, as per Ukrainian claims. Though the strike was unparalleled in its innovative use of cheap drones, this was not the first such strike where an Air Force was shattered even before it got an opportunity to get airborne.

In the annals of combat aviation history, there are many such examples where an adversary’s air power was crushed in pre-emptive strikes, taking the enemy by surprise and fire-bombing its fighter jets before they could fire even a single shot.

The Ukrainian strikes on June 1 have been termed Russia’s Pearl Harbor moment. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 is still considered one of the prime examples of the devastating impact a well-planned pre-emptive strike can have.

In a few hours, the US lost more than 180 aircraft, most of them still on the ground. Only six US aircraft could get into the air to repel the attackers. Japan lost fewer than 30 aircraft and was able to deliver a decisive blow to US Air and naval power in the Pacific.

This early Japanese success in a pre-emptive strike became a template for later generations to follow.

When a war is inevitable, make sure you land the first punch and take out the adversary’s air power before they can get airborne was the lesson from Pearl Harbor.

Since then, many countries have attempted to emulate Japan’s success in pre-emptive strikes. Pakistan attempted it against the Indian Air Force in the 1971 war. Egypt and Syria tried it against the Israeli Air Force in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and Iran tried to cripple Iraqi Air Force in the 1980 Iran-Iraq War.

However, in the history of combat aviation, there was one strike that even surpassed Japan’s success at Pearl Harbor.

Four hundred fifty-two enemy aircraft were turned to ash by an Air Force that had fewer than 250 fighter jets.

Before that preemptive strike, the adversary clearly had a superior air force. By the end of the day, the adversary was without an Air Force. Most of its fighter jets were turned to ash while still on the runway. Its Air Force was dismantled even before they could get airborne or fire a single shot.

The country that launched the pre-emptive strike enjoyed unchallenged air superiority by the end of the day, and its air superiority lasted for at least a couple of years.

The Prelude To The War
Following the Suez Canal crisis in West Asia in 1956, most of the Arab countries, as well as Israel, knew that another war was coming. Israel and the Arab countries also understood that the next war would be fought primarily in the air, and thus, they were strengthening their Air forces.

By 1967, the Egyptian Air Force had amassed nearly 400 aircraft, including state-of-the-art fighter jets, bombers, and transport aircraft. Most of its aircraft were of Soviet origin.

It had nearly 120 MiG-21 Fishbeds. These were modern, supersonic interceptors equipped with air-to-air missiles and cannons, forming the backbone of Egypt’s air defense.

Egypt also had about 60 MiG-19 Farmers. These were older but still effective supersonic fighters used for both air-to-air and ground-attack roles.

The Egyptian Air Force also had nearly 150 MiG-15UTI and MiG-17 Frescos. It also had a bomber fleet of Tu-16 Badgers (nearly 25) and Il-28 Beagles (40 to 50). Besides, it had trainers and transport aircraft.

On the other side, the Israeli Air Force had fewer than 250 aircraft, mostly of French and US origin.

It had approximately 80 Dassault Mirage IIICJ. They formed the backbone of its air superiority fleet. These supersonic jets were equipped with 30mm cannons and could carry air-to-air missiles (like the French Matra R.530).

Israel also had nearly 100 Dassault Super Mystère B.2s and Dassault Mystère IVAs. It also had about 20 Sud Aviation Vautour IIA and some 30 Fouga Magister, which were primarily trainers but were modified for light-attack roles.

What made the job of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) more difficult was that Egypt also enjoyed the support of Syria and had just concluded a defense treaty with Jordan. Both Syria and Jordan also had formidable Air Forces. The combined fighter jet strength of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan was well above 600.

IAF understood that it was vastly outnumbered and outgunned in a dangerous Arab neighborhood. It was understood that the only way it could prevail in a war was by launching a preemptive strike.

Operation Focus: An Unparalleled Success In Combat Aviation History
By June, Egypt had amassed its 130,000-strong Army in the Sinai Peninsula on the border with Israel. On Israel’s north, Syria, and on its East, Jordan were also making aggressive moves.

Israel understood that it’s a now-or-never moment for its survival.

On June 5, 1967, Israel decided to go for the kill by launching Operation Focus, marking the beginning of the Six-Day War.

At 7:00 a.m., nearly 200 Israeli jets, including Dassault Mirage IIIs, Mystères, and Fouga Magisters, took off, leaving only 12 to defend Israel’s skies. Flying low over the Mediterranean to evade radar, the IAF achieved complete tactical surprise.

The first wave struck 11 Egyptian airfields at 7:45 a.m., destroying 197 aircraft and eight radar stations, primarily on the ground, using innovative rocket-assisted anti-runway warheads to disable runways. A second wave at 9:30 a.m. hit 14 more bases, destroying 107 additional Egyptian aircraft.

By now, the Syrian and Jordanian Air Forces also attacked Israel to relieve the pressure on Egypt. The IAF shot down multiple Syrian and Jordanian fighter jets in dogfights.

By noon, the IAF had crippled the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian air forces, totaling about 452 aircraft destroyed. As Arab forces retaliated ineffectively, IAF planes were diverted to strike Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi targets, ensuring air supremacy by day’s end.

Most of the IAF fighter jets made multiple sorties. They returned to Israeli air bases after bombing Egyptian planes, refueled and rearmed, and returned for another wave of strikes.

Most of the jets achieved a turnover time of less than eight minutes. They fought on three fronts simultaneously, the Egyptian front in the south, the Syrian front in the north, and the Jordanian front in the east.

Israel lost 19 aircraft, approximately 10% of its fighter jet fleet, mostly to ground fire, with five pilots killed and five captured. The Arab coalition lost approximately 452 aircraft.

The Egyptian Air Force suffered the most significant damage. It lost nearly 311 aircraft, most of them on the ground. Egypt lost almost 75% of its fighter jets and 100% of its bomber fleet.

On the morning of June 5, 1967, Egypt had a formidable Air Force, consisting of over 400 fighter jets. The Egyptian Air Force was one of the largest in the Middle East.

By the afternoon of the same day, the country was effectively without an Air Force. The Syrian and Jordanian Air Forces also received decisive blows.

By evening, the IAF had unchallenged air superiority in the region.

The decisive air victory of the IAF ensured a swift triumph for Israel. Within six days, Israel had routed a grand Arab coalition. At the end of the six days, Israel had expanded its territory by nearly three times.

It was now in occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, including the historic East Jerusalem, and the strategic Golan Heights.

More than 50 years later, Israel is still in possession of most of these territories except the Sinai Peninsula, which it returned to Egypt.

The wild success the IAF achieved in Operation Focus is unmatched in the annals of combat aviation history.

Israel declines hostage deal talks in Qatar after Hamas demands changes.

An Israeli official said, however, that "negotiations have not stopped, efforts of the mediators still continue."

Israel will not send a delegation to Qatar after Hamas requested changes to the US envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff's outline for a hostage deal, Israeli media reported Tuesday.

An Israeli official said, however, that "negotiations have not stopped, efforts of the mediators still continue."

Israel is making it clear that, despite Hamas' apparent "willingness" to continue negotiations, in practice, there is no change in the group's position, and that the gaps with the Witkoff proposal remain.

Hamas's response does not include a serious reference to the Witkoff proposal and presents new demands that deviate greatly from the Israeli line, Israeli sources said.

The additional demands include a ceasefire of up to seven years, a complete IDF withdrawal from the areas occupied since March, and the cancellation of the activities of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

"Israel has agreed to the Witkoff framework as proposed – that is the official position," a diplomatic source clarified. "Despite Hamas' statements, there has been no significant change."

Sources in Israel added that Hamas's willingness to return to negotiations is seen as a purely tactical move designed to improve its international image.

"This is not an answer - it is a slammed door. Hamas's response only distances us from an agreement," Witkoff said in response to Hamas's demands.

Tension between mediators US, Egypt
The US, Qatar, and Egypt are continuing mediation efforts in line with the Witkoff proposal.

However, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Ati held a phone call with Witkoff on Sunday that, according to Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar, was significantly and noticeably tense, reflecting Egypt's growing concerns that the war in Gaza will become an open war of attrition.

Egypt is concerned that the IDF's continued military activity, particularly in Khan Yunis, will result in a redrawing of the demographic map in the south of Gaza, and the gradual pushing of Palestinians towards the border with Egypt, posing a direct threat to the country's national security, Abdel Ati told Witkoff.

Additionally, Abdel Ati reportedly did not hesitate to blame Washington for part of the failure of the negotiations, as well as criticizing the way the US administration is conducting the negotiations.

Witkoff has asked American-Palestinian businessman Bishara Bahah to remain in Doha and continue talks with Hamas, in the hope that his presence will avoid a sense of finality or disconnect between the parties.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Coming days 'critical' for Gaza deal progress, Qatar, Egypt hold significant weight.

Security sources stressed that the coming days are critical for the prospects of progress in a deal, and that mediators have a crucial role.

Increased involvement by Qatar and Egypt amid a deadlock in hostage deal negotiations could help narrow gaps between the sides, with the coming days considered critical for progress, senior Israeli officials told Walla Monday.

This was previously achieved during proximity talks and negotiations for the previous hostage deal held in Doha.

A security source emphasized that a distinction should be made between the “Qatargate” affair and the suspicions against Israeli citizens, and separating this from Qatar's role as a hostage deal mediator.

“This is an internal Israeli matter that must be separated from Qatar’s role as a mediator, alongside the Egyptian mediator,” the source said.

He stressed that the coming days are critical for the prospects of progress and that the mediators have an important role to play.

Against this backdrop, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir visited the Gaza Strip on Sunday for a series of meetings with commanders in regular service and reservists. The visit took place while the US continues efforts to advance negotiations between Israel and Hamas for a hostage deal.

Deadlock in hostage talks would lead to further IDF ground operations in Gaza
A US announcement of a deadlock would prompt the government to instruct the IDF to move to an advanced stage of ground operations toward significant areas where the IDF has not operated so far, and such a move could increase pressure on Hamas leadership.

Sources in the security establishment estimate that in the coming days, a decision will be made regarding the negotiations for a hostage deal. At that point, it will be determined whether the IDF will expand its operations in the Gaza Strip significantly.

At the end of his tour, the chief of staff promised to review the numerous comments and questions raised by reservists. Some of the reservists present at the meeting have been mobilized for the sixth time since the start of the war. They urged the army commanders to “defeat Hamas this time.” If that is not the intention, they requested clarity as soon as possible regarding the duration of their upcoming reserve duty.

----------------------------------------------------------

Israel, Hamas continue Gaza hostage deal talks despite significant gaps.

Hamas demands US guarantees that negotiations for a deal, including a ceasefire, will continue after the initial 60-day period, a source told the Post.

Negotiations between Israel and Hamas, mediated by Egypt, Qatar, and the US, are ongoing despite significant gaps, a source familiar with the matter told The Jerusalem Post.

Qatar’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, met with senior Hamas officials based in Doha. These officials emphasized that Hamas demands US guarantees that negotiations for a deal, including a ceasefire, will continue after the initial 60-day period, the source told the Post.

Efforts are being made to reach new understandings with Hamas before Eid al-Adha, which begins this Friday. In Doha, Dr. Bishara Bahbah, an envoy of Steve Witkoff, continues to engage with senior Hamas officials.

The mediators, Egypt, Qatar, and the US administration, are working to advance a deal or at least secure agreements between the parties despite the challenges.

Israeli officials note that following Egypt and Qatar’s announcement on Sunday regarding their efforts to reach a deal, Hamas also issued a statement, signaling its interest in an agreement. However, Hamas proposed a framework significantly different from Witkoff's original plan, which included the release of 10 hostages within a week.

Families of Israelis held hostage in Gaza and supporters protest calling for the release of Israelis held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Gaza, outside the US Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv, May 13, 2025.
“The military operation is intensifying, aid is entering without Hamas’s control, and the terrorist organization is under pressure,” an Israeli source told the Post. “Within a week, Hamas presented two proposals, which were both rejected by Witkoff, and it will gradually realize that Witkoff's framework is the only deal on the table.”

---------------------------------------------------------

Hamas cease-fire counteroffer: Let us survive
Hamas on May 31 announced it had “responded to” the latest ceasefire proposal from US envoy Steve Witkoff, apparently seeking assurances that Israel won’t simply go back to eliminating it when the 60-day pause is up.

Gaza in turmoil: Clans emerge as rivals to Hamas's rule.

These clans act like armed militias, forcibly seizing food, looting warehouses, and shooting to protect their members from Hamas security forces.

Armed clans are reasserting themselves in the Gaza Strip, challenging Hamas’s authority, particularly in areas where the IDF is conducting operations and Hamas has lost control, senior IDF officials told Walla.

Sources told Saudi-owned site Al Hadath on Sunday that Hamas has lost security control over the Gaza Strip, adding that thieves and gangs seize aid, loot homes, and terrorize residents.

According to a senior IDF officer, these clans act like armed militias, forcibly seizing food, looting warehouses, and shooting to protect their members from Hamas security forces.

The influence of these clans predates the current conflict, rooted in longstanding smuggling networks trafficking weapons, drugs, cigarettes, and electronic goods from Egypt and Israel. Over the years, Hamas reached understandings with some of these clans, occasionally even cooperating with them, particularly during the massacre and looting on October 7.

Hamas’s hold weakened further as the IDF carried out ground operations and divided Gaza. Following the ceasefire announcement, Hamas forces deployed convoys to both the north and south, aiming to reassert control. These forces responded harshly to defiant clans, employing arrests, torture, knee shootings, and even killings to quell opposition.

The Abu Shabab clan, led by Yasser Abu Shabab of the Tarabin family, has emerged as a leading force. After being expelled from Rafah, the clan has operated aggressively in the north and south. Palestinian reports indicate that the group both secures humanitarian aid convoys and loots them. Hamas has accused the clan of collaborating with Israel.

What are the other groups challenging Hamas's monopoly on power?
Another significant group is the Dughmush clan - also known as Dajmash - which hails from Tel al-Hawa and al-Sabra in Gaza City. This clan was previously involved in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit and has a history of violent confrontations with Hamas. Its leader was killed last year amid allegations of ties to Israel.

Security sources say most of these clans are motivated by a desire for power and wealth rather than ideology. They are exploiting Hamas’s weakened position to expand their influence, sometimes proving to be as effective as Hamas itself.

Other active clans include the Abu Tir clan, which operated in Khan Yunis and specialized in smuggling from Sinai; the Al Kashk clan, based in Gaza City and closely linked to local centers of authority; the Abu Risha clan, which was active in Rafah and maintained ties with Salafi groups; the Shawish clan, a relatively small but active group in Gaza; and the Baraka clan, which is affiliated with Fatah and operates primarily in Gaza City.

Former security officials caution that as long as these clans remain armed, they will pose a threat to Hamas’s authority. “There is no vacuum in Gaza,” said one official. “If Hamas gunmen are not present, clan members will try to impose their own order. Should a ceasefire hold, Hamas will have to confront this entrenched problem. If not, the clans will only grow stronger. They are not waiting for anyone.”

Hamas has agreed to release 10 living hostages and 18 bodies in its response to the US's Gaza ceasefire proposals

The group said under the deal Israel would release a number of Palestinian prisoners - Israel is yet to respond

Earlier this week, the White House said Israel had "signed off" on Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff's plan

Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza and resumed its military offensive against Hamas on 18 March, collapsing a two-month ceasefire brokered by the US, Qatar and Egypt

Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to Hamas's cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage

At least 54,249 people have been killed in Gaza during the war, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamas seeks changes in Gaza proposal; Witkoff calls it "unacceptable"

Hamas said on Saturday it was seeking amendments to a U.S.-backed proposal for a temporary ceasefire with Israel in Gaza.

However, in a social media post, U.S. President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff rejected the Palestinian militant group's response as quote, "totally unacceptable."

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Saturday that Hamas is continuing its refusal of the proposal so it will continue its action in Gaza for the return of hostages and defeat of Hamas.

The plan includes a 60-day truce and the exchange of 28 of the 58 hostages still held in Gaza for more than 1,200 Palestinian prisoners and detainees, along with the entry of humanitarian aid into the enclave.

Hamas said it was willing to release 10 living hostages and hand over the bodies of 18 dead in exchange for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons.

But It reiterated demands for an end to the war and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, conditions Israel has rejected.

Israel has demanded the complete disarmament of the group and its dismantling as a military and governing force, along with the return of all 58 remaining hostages.

Trump said on Friday he believed a ceasefire agreement was close after the latest proposals, and the White House said on Thursday that Israel had agreed to the terms.

Also, on Saturday, the Israeli military said it had killed Mohammad Sinwar Hamas' Gaza chief on May 13, confirming what Netanyahu said earlier this week.

Hamas has neither confirmed nor denied his death.

Israel has said it will “not cooperate” with plans from the Palestinian Authority (PA) to host a Saudi-led delegation of foreign ministers in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, an Israeli official said.

In order to travel to the meeting in Ramallah, ministers from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and Turkey needed approval from Israel who controls access to the West Bank. It would have been the highest-level Saudi visit to the area since it was occupied by Israel in 1967.

The Israeli official dubbed the meeting “provocative” and “Israel will not cooperate with such moves aimed at harming it and its security.”

The official added that the PA “must stop violating its agreements with Israel on all levels.”
Saudi source with knowledge of the matter said Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan had postponed his planned trip to the West Bank – the first ever by such a high-ranking Saudi official since 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Hamas on Saturday said that it has responded to a Gaza ceasefire plan put forward by the US, repeating its call for an end to the war, in a move the US’ Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, called “totally unacceptable.”

Hamas said that its “proposal” to the mediators – Qatar and Egypt — “aims to achieve a permanent ceasefire, a comprehensive withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and ensure the flow of aid to our people and our families in the Gaza Strip.”

“As part of this agreement, 10 living Israeli prisoners held by the resistance will be released, in addition to the return of 18 bodies, in exchange for an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners,”

It comes after a senior Hamas official said earlier this week that the group had sent back a three-pronged counterproposal requesting US assurances that the negotiations over a permanent ceasefire, that humanitarian assistance be carried out through the United Nations; and that the IDF pull back to the positions that they held on Marc

Israel called on Qatar, a key mediator between Israel and Hamas, to "stop playing both sides with its double talk and decide if it's on the side of civilization or if it's on the side of Hamas", the Israeli Prime Minister's office.

Qatar rejected the statements as "inflammatory".
Despite efforts by Egyptian and Qatari mediators to restore a ceasefire, neither Israel nor Hamas has shown willingness to back down on core demands, with each side blaming the other for the failure to reach a deal.

Israel, which wants the return of 59 hostages still held in Gaza, has insisted Hamas must disarm and be excluded from any role in the future governance of the enclave, a condition that Hamas rejects.

"The State of Qatar firmly rejects the inflammatory statements issued by the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, which fall far short of the most basic standards of political and moral responsibility," Qatar's foreign ministry

Hamas is open to an agreement to end the war in Gaza that would see all hostages released and secure a five-year truce, an official said Saturday as the group's negotiators held talks with mediators.
A Hamas delegation visited Cairo to discuss with Egyptian mediators ways out of the 18-month war while, on the ground, rescuers said Israeli strikes in Gaza killed at least 35 people.

Nearly eight weeks into an Israeli aid blockade, the United Nations says food and medical supplies are running out in the territory.
The Hamas official, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said the Palestinian militant group "is ready for an exchange of prisoners in a single batch and a truce for five years".
The latest bid to seal a ceasefire follows an Israeli proposal Hamas rejected earlier this month as "partial". The new proposal calls instead for a "comprehensive" agreement to halt the war ignited by the group's October 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

Only Love Can Drive Out Hate-
That which you hate to be done to you,
do not do to another.
- Ancient Egyptian Proverb
[There is a form of the "Golden Rule" in virtually every religious and cultural tradition.]

Israel accused Emmanuel Macron of giving Hamas a “prize for terrorism” after he said France was ready to formally recognise Palestine as a state.

In a major foreign policy shift, the French president said Paris could recognise a Palestinian state as early as June, at a UN conference in New York. If this took place France would become the first permanent member of the UN Security Council to do so, potentially creating a rift with Israel ally Donald Trump.

During a two-day trip to Egypt, Mr Macron said recognition would encourage several countries in the Middle East that do not recognise Israel to do so.

“We need to move towards recognition. And so over the next few months, we will. I’m not doing it to please anyone. I’ll do it because at some point it will be right,” he said on Wednesday.
“And because I also want to take part in a collective dynamic that should also enable those who defend Palestine to recognise Israel in their turn, something that many of them are not doing.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday demanded Hamas disarm and its leaders depart Gaza as he promised to step up military operations against the group.
His comments come after the Hamas leader in Gaza said it had agreed to a ceasefire proposed by mediators Egypt and Qatar that included the release of five Israeli hostages each week.

Those efforts are aimed at renewing a two-month truce that saw the exchange of Israelis kidnapped by Palestinian militants for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli detention.
Israel resumed strikes and ground incursions into Gaza on March 18.
The Hamas leader said Israel's demands it lay down its arms was a "red line" the group would not cross.
Netanyahu said he was conducting negotiations and military operations simultaneously, a strategy he said "creates the conditions for the release of our hostages."

Hamas terrorists about to completely destroy Palestine.
A senior Hamas official urged supporters worldwide on Monday to take up weapons and fight plans to displace Gaza's people, as Israel issued a sweeping evacuation order in the territory's south, stepping up its renewed offensive.

The idea of forcing Gazans to leave the devastated territory for neighbouring countries such as Egypt and Jordan was first floated by US President Donald Trump, and has since been seized on by right-wing Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who vowed on Sunday to implement it.

"In the face of this sinister plan -- one that combines massacres with starvation -- anyone who can bear arms, anywhere in the world, must take action," Sami Abu Zuhri said.
Israeli military was "returning to fight with great force to eliminate the capabilities of terrorist organisations in these areas"
"Do not withhold an explosive, a bullet, a knife, or a stone. Let everyone break their silence

The Hamas militant group said Saturday it has accepted a new Gaza ceasefire proposal from mediators Egypt and Qatar, but Israel said it has made a counter-proposal in “full coordination” with the third mediator, the United States.

Egypt early in the week made a proposal to get the troubled ceasefire back on track, following Israel’s surprise resumption of fighting. It was not immediately clear whether the proposal changed before Khalil al-Hayyah, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, announced it had been accepted.

Early in the week, an Egyptian official described the proposal to The Associated Press, saying Hamas would release five living hostages, including an American-Israeli, from Gaza in return for Israel allowing aid into the territory and a weekslong pause in fighting. Israel would release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave no details about Israel’s counter-proposal, which it said was offered after Netanyahu held consultations.

United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and U.S. President Donald Trump discussed in a phone call efforts for reaching a ceasefire in Gaza, Emirati state news agency, as Israel resumed its military offensive in the enclave last week.

The Israeli military resumed fighting in Gaza on March 18, shattering a fragile two-month ceasefire. Since then, nearly 700 people, mostly women and children, have been killed, according to Palestinian health officials.

In his phone call with Trump, the Emirati president also urged making aid available for Gaza residents as well as supporting the two-state solution.

In early February, Trump presented his plan for Gaza which entailed displacing Palestinians and creating a Middle East "Riviera". The proposal drew condemnations from many global leaders.
Arab states including the UAE adopted an Egyptian alternative reconstruction plan for Gaza that would cost $53 billion and avoid displacing Palestinians.

Arab leaders on Tuesday endorsed Egypt's postwar plan for the Gaza Strip that would allow its roughly 2 million Palestinians to remain, in a counterproposal to U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to depopulate the territory and redevelop it as a beach destination.

The $53 billion plan's endorsement by Arab leaders at a summit in Cairo amounted to a rejection of Trump’s proposal. The summit conclusions were welcomed by Hamas, rejected by Israel and given a lukewarm response by the Trump administration.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi expressed his appreciation for “the consensus among the Arab countries to support the reconstruction plan for the Gaza Strip, which allows the Palestinian People to stay on their land without displacement.”

In a social media post after the summit, el-Sissi said he looked forward to working with Trump, other Arab nations and the international community “to adopt a plan that aims for a comprehensive and just settlement of the Palestinian Issue, ends the root causes of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, guarantees the security and stability of the peoples of the region and establishes the Palestinian State."

Egypt's alternative to Trump's 'Gaza Riviera' aims to sideline Hamas.
A plan for Gaza drawn up by Egypt as a counter to U.S. President Donald Trump's ambition for a Middle East Riviera would sideline Hamas and replace it with interim bodies controlled by Arab, Muslim and Western states, according to a draft seen by Reuters.

The Egyptian vision for Gaza, which is due to be presented at an Arab League summit on Tuesday, does not specify whether the proposal would be implemented before or after any permanent peace deal to end the war triggered by the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks.

Trump's plan, which envisioned clearing Gaza of its Palestinian inhabitants, appeared to back away from long-standing U.S. Middle East policy focused on a two-state solution and sparked anger among Palestinians and Arab nations.
Who will run Gaza after the conflict remains the great unanswered question in negotiations over the future of the enclave. Hamas has so far rejected the idea of any proposal being imposed on Palestinians by other states.

Cairo's plan does not tackle critical issues such as who will foot the bill for Gaza's reconstruction or outline any specific details around how Gaza would be governed, nor how an armed group as powerful as Hamas would be pushed aside.

Israel will not withdraw its forces from the Gaza-Egypt border as would be required under the second phase of a truce with Hamas, an Israeli source says, even as it dispatches a team for ceasefire negotiations.

“We will not exit the Philadelphi Corridor,” referring to the 14-kilometer (8-mile) strip along the border. “We will not allow Hamas murderers to roam again with trucks and rifles on our borders, and we will not let them strengthen themselves again through smuggling.”

The announcement comes days before the first phase of the Israel-Hamas hostage-ceasefire agreement is set to expire, and just hours after Hamas handed over the final hostages due for release under the first phase.

Hamas said in a statement that Israel’s failure to withdraw from the Gaza-Egypt border would be “a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement, and an attempt to fabricate excuses to obstruct the ceasefire agreement and causing it to fail.”

Hamas has said that it will continue with the Israeli hostage deal as planned, in a major about-turn by the terrorist group.
The organisation said on Thursday that Egyptian and Qatari mediators had agreed to “remove all hurdles” and that it would implement the existing arrangement.

It means three Israeli hostages should be freed on Saturday in return for scores of Palestinian prisoners.
On Tuesday, Hamas announced that it was suspending hostage releases, citing alleged Israeli violations of the deal.
It prompted Donald Trump to state that all remaining hostages should be freed by midday on Saturday or “all hell is going to break out”.
Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the IDF to reinforce around Gaza in readiness for a resumption of war and he adopted Mr Trump’s threatening language.

However, he was ambiguous as to whether Israel would accept three hostages rather than the “all” demanded in Washington.

Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will not travel to Washington for talks at the White House as long as the agenda includes U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to displace Palestinians from Gaza, two Egyptian security sources.

Trump has infuriated the Arab world with a plan to permanently displace the population of more than 2 million Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, claim U.S. control of it and turn it into the "Riviera of the Middle East".
He has demanded Egypt and Jordan take in the Palestinians.
Sisi and King Abdullah spoke on the phone on Wednesday and urged that Gaza should be rebuilt without displacing Palestinians, the Egyptian presidency said.
MILITARY AID
Egypt's close cooperation with the United States has been a bedrock of Washington's Middle East policy for decades. Since a U.S.-brokered peace treaty between Israel and Egypt more than four decades ago, Egypt has consistently been one of the biggest recipients of U.S. military aid, alongside Israel.

Egypt plans to "present a comprehensive vision for the reconstruction" of the Gaza Strip that does not require the displacement of Palestinians, the country's foreign ministry said.

Cairo said it will work with President Donald Trump's administration "to achieve a comprehensive and just peace in the region by reaching a just settlement of the Palestinian cause that upholds the rights of the region's peoples,"

Cairo's reconstruction proposal will ensure "the Palestinian people remain in their homeland" and will align "with their legitimate and legal rights,".

Any solution should "avoid endangering the gains of peace in the region" and address "the root cause of the conflict by ending Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and implementing the two-state solution as the only path to stability and coexistence among the region's peoples," the ministry added.
Egypt's proposal comes as Arab states scramble to respond to Trump's proposal for the U.S. to "take over" and "clean out" G

Egyptian and Qatari mediators were working to salvage the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday.
The fragile ceasefire is facing a significant test after Hamas said it would delay the next release of hostages scheduled for Saturday, alleging Israel has violated the truce by firing on people in Gaza and not allowing the agreed-upon number of tents, shelters and other vital aid to enter the territory.

Since the truce started on Jan. 19, Israeli fire has killed at least 92 Palestinians and wounded more than 800 others, said Munir al-Bursh, director general of the Health Ministry, on Tuesday. The Israeli military says it has fired on people who approach its forces or enter certain areas in violation of the truce.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with the support of President Donald Trump, has warned that Israel would resume fighting if hostages are not freed on Saturday. Trump has threated that “all hell” will break out if the militant group does not release