Spanish national Saif Abu Keshek and Brazilian national Thiago Avila appeared before a court in Ashkelon for a second hearing, after being brought to Israel last week following the interception of their vessel by Israeli forces off the coast of Greece.“The court approved their detention until Sunday morning,” said Miriam Azem of Adalah, which is providing legal representation.

An AFP journalist witnessed the activists being escorted into the courtroom with their legs shackled.The two were among dozens of individuals aboard a flotilla that had set sail from France, Spain and Italy with the stated aim of delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza and challenging Israel’s long-standing blockade.

Adalah said the activists have been on a hunger strike for six days and alleged that both were subjected to physical and psychological abuse in detention. The group said they were being held in isolation under constant high-intensity lighting, with Avila allegedly exposed to extremely cold temperatures.“They are kept blindfolded at all times whenever they are moved outside their cells, including during medical examinations,” the group said.

Israeli authorities have rejected the allegations.During an earlier hearing, prosecutors presented a list of charges including assisting the enemy during wartime and membership in, and providing services to, a terrorist organization, according to Adalah.

Defense lawyers challenged Israel’s jurisdiction, arguing the activists had been unlawfully detained in international waters.Israel’s foreign ministry said both individuals were affiliated with the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad, which it alleged has links to Hamas. It described Abu Keshek as a leading member and said Avila was also suspected of involvement in illegal activity.

The flotilla was part of the Global Sumud initiative, whose previous attempt last year was similarly intercepted. Israeli forces stopped the latest convoy early on Thursday off Greece’s coast.Israel has maintained a blockade on Gaza since 2007 and controls access points into the territory.

Aid flows have been severely disrupted during the ongoing war that began in October 2023, contributing to shortages of essential supplies.

Citing U.S. officials familiar with the matter, the report said Trump concluded during a White House Situation Room meeting on Monday that both resuming bombing campaigns and fully stepping back from the conflict carried greater risks than maintaining a naval squeeze on Iran’s oil exports and shipping routes.

According to the report, Trump believes Iran is not negotiating in good faith and wants Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment for 20 years while accepting strict long-term restrictions on its nuclear activities. Officials said the administration views the blockade as a way to intensify pressure without immediately reopening large-scale military operations.

Trump signaled frustration publicly on Wednesday, writing on his Truth Social platform that Iran “can’t get their act together” and warning Tehran to “better get smart soon.”

“Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a nonnuclear deal.They better get smart soon!” Trump posted, alongside an image carrying the caption “NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!”The reported strategy would rely on the U.S. Navy continuing efforts to restrict vessels traveling to and from Iranian ports, further tightening pressure on oil exports that are central to Iran’s economy.

Analysts say the approach risks extending instability around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy transit routes.Oil markets reacted sharply to reports of a prolonged blockade, with Brent crude rising to a one-month high above $114 a barrel on concerns over sustained supply disruption and continued uncertainty over shipping through the Hormuz corridor.

The White House has not formally announced a policy shift, and Iranian officials have not publicly responded to the Wall Street Journal report.The decision suggests Washington may be preparing for a prolonged standoff in which active fighting remains limited but diplomacy remains frozen, leaving the conflict in what analysts describe as a “no-deal, no-war” phase.

The White House said Witkoff and Kushner would hold an “in-person conversation” with Iranian representatives in Islamabad, but Iranian state media reported that direct negotiations were not planned and that Pakistan would instead act as an intermediary.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who arrived in Islamabad on Friday, delivered Tehran’s negotiating demands and concerns over U.S. conditions to Pakistani officials, a Pakistani source involved in the discussions told Reuters.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said Araghchi’s visit focused on “ongoing efforts for regional peace and stability,” without explicitly confirming face-to-face engagement between Iranian and American officials.

Security across Islamabad was tightened sharply before the talks, with major roads sealed, military checkpoints reinforced, and troops deployed around the capital’s airport and heavily fortified Red Zone.Residents reported widespread disruption as police and soldiers controlled key intersections, helicopters circled overhead, and airport access routes were placed under heightened surveillance following the Iranian delegation’s arrival late Friday.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the renewed talks followed an Iranian request for direct engagement after President Donald Trump urged Tehran to return to negotiations.“The Iranians reached out, as the president called on them to do, and asked for this in-person conversation,” Leavitt said, adding that the talks would “hopefully move the ball forward toward a deal.”

Vice President JD Vance, who led a first round of negotiations in Islamabad earlier this month that ended without agreement, remained on standby to travel if required.Iranian state television, however, said Araghchi had no intention of meeting U.S. officials directly and that Islamabad would serve only as a channel for conveying Tehran’s proposals to Washington.

Iran’s military on Saturday warned it would respond if the United States continued what it described as a blockade of Iranian ports, calling the move “banditry” and “piracy.”In a statement carried by state broadcaster IRIB, Iran’s central military command Khatam Al-Anbiya said that if “the invading U.S. military continues blockading, banditry, and piracy in the region,” it would face retaliation from Iran’s armed forces.

“We are ready and determined, while monitoring the behavior and movements of enemies,” the statement said.Iran’s Defense Ministry separately said Washington was seeking a “face-saving” way to withdraw from the war.

“Our military power today is a dominant force, and the enemy is looking for a face-saving way to escape the war quagmire it has become trapped in,” ministry officials were quoted as saying by ISNA.Diplomatic efforts have stalled in recent weeks as Iran refused to rejoin formal negotiations while a U.S. naval blockade on its ports remained in place.

At the same time, Tehran has imposed a de facto restriction on the Strait of Hormuz, allowing only limited shipping through the strategic waterway that handles roughly one-fifth of global oil trade.The disruption has unsettled energy markets and raised concerns over broader supply chain instability.

Oil prices fell on Friday as hopes grew that the Islamabad talks could lead to de-escalation.European Council President Antonio Costa said the immediate reopening of the strait was essential.“The strait must immediately reopen without restrictions and without tolling,” Costa said.

“This is vital for the entire world.”Major Wall Street indexes closed at record highs on Friday as investors responded positively to corporate earnings and expectations of diplomatic progress.Meanwhile, Washington expanded its military presence in the region with the deployment of its third aircraft carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush, to the Middle East.

Araghchi is expected to travel next to Oman and Russia for further consultations on ending the conflict launched on Feb. 28 between Iran, Israel, and the United States.

The Islamabad talks are being closely watched as a potential turning point for whether the current ceasefire evolves into a broader settlement or gives way to renewed confrontation across the region.

The protests in Gaza are more than just a reaction to immediate hardships; they are a plea for recognition.

The recent public demonstrations in Gaza have surprised many observers worldwide. For over 16 months, Gazans have endured relentless Israeli airstrikes, devastation, and an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe. Throughout this period, they have been lauded for their resilience and sacrifice. However, this week’s protests reveal a different side of Gaza’s reality—one that underscores the human need for dignity, justice, and relief from suffering.

The people of Gaza have become synonymous with resistance. Their ability to endure unspeakable hardship has turned them into symbols of perseverance. But as Daoud Kuttab, the award-winning Palestinian journalist, rightly points out, they are human, not superhuman. They feel pain, grieve for their loved ones, and grow frustrated when faced with endless injustice and global indifference. The latest protests are an expression of that frustration—a desperate call for attention to their plight.

The Breaking Point: Renewed Violence and Desperation

The situation in Gaza had seen a glimmer of hope in January when a long-overdue ceasefire was finally implemented. Displaced families began making their way back north, only to find their homes in ruins. With limited resources, they started clearing debris, hoping for the arrival of heavy machinery to remove the rubble and recover the bodies still trapped beneath. But just as they were attempting to rebuild their shattered lives, the ceasefire was abruptly shattered by an Israeli airstrike that killed 400 Palestinians, many of them women and children.

Israel justified the attack by claiming it targeted mid-level Hamas leaders. However, this massive escalation did more than eliminate specific individuals—it reignited a war that had already left Gaza on the brink of collapse. Many Palestinians had placed their faith in the U.S.-brokered ceasefire, expecting some degree of enforcement from the American administration. Instead, Washington chose silence, failing to hold Israel accountable for violating the agreement.

The attack was followed by an intensified blockade on humanitarian aid, leaving Gaza’s already-starving population in an even more dire situation. The Jordanian airdrops of food and medical supplies—though symbolic—failed to provide meaningful relief. As hunger and despair deepened, Gazans found themselves facing a cruel reality: neither the ceasefire nor the promises of humanitarian intervention could protect them.

A Response to Betrayal and Neglect

The frustration that erupted in the form of protests was not merely directed at Israel but also at Hamas. The people of Gaza expect their leaders to navigate crises with strategy and pragmatism, not just ideological steadfastness. In Beit Lahia, when Hamas fired a single symbolic rocket in response to Israeli violations, the Israeli military responded with overwhelming force, once again forcing civilians to evacuate their homes.

This cycle of suffering has tested the patience of even the most steadfast supporters of the resistance. For many Palestinians, the inability of Hamas to negotiate effectively or anticipate Israeli retaliations has become a source of anger. The protesters in Gaza were not only condemning Israeli aggression but also demanding that their leadership show better judgment in a conflict where the balance of power remains overwhelmingly against them.

Attempts to dismiss the protests as externally orchestrated—whether by Mohammed Dahlan’s faction or the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority—were quickly refuted by community leaders in Beit Lahia. These demonstrations were an organic expression of the people’s anger, not the result of political manipulation.

A Call for Immediate Action

Despite growing discontent with Hamas, the protests should not be misinterpreted as a rejection of Palestinian resistance. Rather, they reflect the urgency of a more strategic approach—one that recognizes the evolving geopolitical landscape. The recent shifts in Washington, Beirut, and beyond necessitate careful recalibration. While Palestinian resilience remains unshaken, the need for diplomatic maneuvering is becoming ever more apparent.

The ceasefire must be reinstated immediately. This is not just a demand for temporary relief but a necessity for survival. The ongoing blockade of food and medical supplies is a blatant war crime, and its continuation only serves to deepen Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. International law explicitly prohibits the use of starvation as a weapon of war, yet the global community has failed to enforce these laws when it comes to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

A comprehensive political process must follow the ceasefire. The reconstruction of Gaza is essential, but it cannot happen in a vacuum. Any meaningful rebuilding effort must be accompanied by a serious peace initiative—one that includes the release of prisoners, restoration of basic human rights, and an end to the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Will the World Listen?

The protests in Gaza are more than just a reaction to immediate hardships; they are a plea for recognition. Palestinians are not just statistics in an ongoing conflict—they are human beings with emotions, aspirations, and the right to live in dignity. Their suffering has been met with indifference for far too long. It is time for the world to listen.

Arab nations must take a stronger stand. While public outrage in the region remains high, political action has been lacking. Diplomatic pressure on Israel must be increased, and unconditional support for its war policies must be challenged. The international community, too, must move beyond empty statements and push for tangible accountability.

The cries from Gaza should not be ignored. They serve as a stark reminder that this war is not just about military strategies or political power plays—it is about real lives being lost, real families being destroyed, and real suffering that must end. The time for action is now, before more innocent lives are lost to a conflict that has already claimed too many.