Al-Sharaa met Starmer at 10 Downing Street, marking the first visit by a Syrian head of state to London since former president Bashar Assad traveled to the UK in 2002.According to a Downing Street spokesperson, discussions covered migration returns, border security and efforts to combat people-smuggling networks.

Starmer also welcomed steps taken by Damascus against Daesh, citing progress in counter-terrorism cooperation between the two countries.The talks also addressed broader regional stability concerns alongside economic cooperation.

The visit comes as Syria seeks foreign investment to rebuild infrastructure damaged during years of civil war. Al-Sharaa is expected to hold further meetings with senior British officials during his stay.

He was accompanied by Foreign Affairs Minister Asaad Hassan Al-Shaibani and Economy Minister Nidal Al-Shaar.European outreach continuesAl-Sharaa arrived in London following a visit to Germany, where he met Chancellor Friedrich Merz, as part of a broader diplomatic push to re-engage European partners.

No specific agreements were announced following the London meeting.

The film, directed by Kaouther Ben Hania, recounts the death of five-year-old Hind Rajab during Israel’s war with Hamas. Manoj Nandwana of Jai Viratra Entertainment, the film’s Indian distributor, said a member of the Central Board of Film Certification told him the release would “hamper India’s relations with Israel,” though he added no formal written rejection had been issued.

Nandwana said that after screening the film for the board, it became clear it would not be cleared for theatrical release. He questioned the decision, noting the film had been screened internationally, including in Israel.

The film had earlier been shown at an international festival in Kolkata in November, according to the distributor.

India’s certification process requires approval from the Central Board of Film Certification for public exhibition, with decisions sometimes reflecting broader sensitivities tied to law and order or diplomatic considerations.

New Delhi has strengthened strategic ties with Israel in recent years across defence, agriculture, technology and cybersecurity, while continuing to support Palestinian statehood in line with its longstanding foreign policy.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel last month, his second trip since 2017, shortly before Israel and the United States launched airstrikes on Iran, underscoring the evolving geopolitical context.

Opposition lawmaker Shashi Tharoor criticised the move, calling it “disgraceful” and arguing that restricting films over potential diplomatic sensitivities undermines freedom of expression in a democracy.

“The Voice of Hind Rajab” was nominated for Best International Feature at this year’s Academy Awards but did not win. It received the Silver Lion grand jury prize at the Venice Film Festival, where it drew strong audience reactions at its premiere.

In the statement, Pezeshkian said Iran had attempted to avoid war through diplomatic engagement with neighbouring governments but that recent military actions by the United States and Israel had forced Tehran to act in self-defence. “We have strived alongside you and through diplomacy to avoid war, but the American-Zionist military aggression has left us no choice but to defend ourselves,” he wrote.

The Iranian president addressed the message to what he described as “friendly and neighboring states,” stressing that Tehran respects the sovereignty of countries across the Middle East. He added that regional security and stability should be achieved collectively by states in the region rather than through outside intervention.

Iranian officials have repeatedly framed their military posture in recent months as defensive, arguing that the country is responding to external threats. Pezeshkian’s remarks reflect Tehran’s long-standing position that regional security arrangements should be managed by Middle Eastern governments themselves.

The message appeared aimed at reassuring neighbouring governments that Iran’s response would not threaten their territorial sovereignty while also signalling that Tehran considers recent military actions against it to justify retaliation under self-defence.

The announcement came after internal consultations within the Coordination Framework, the parliamentary bloc that currently holds a majority of seats.

The alliance said it selected Al-Maliki by majority vote, describing him as the nominee of the largest bloc in parliament.

The statement highlighted his long political career and administrative experience, pointing to his previous leadership of the Iraqi state during a turbulent period.

Al-Maliki, who is 75, remains one of the most influential figures in Iraq’s post 2003 political landscape.

He previously served two consecutive terms as prime minister from 2006 to 2014, making him the only Iraqi leader to do so since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

His tenure coincided with some of the country’s most challenging years, marked by insurgency, sectarian violence and the rebuilding of state institutions.

Supporters argue that this experience positions him as a figure capable of navigating Iraq’s complex political and security environment.

The Coordination Framework is a coalition of Shiite parties, some of which maintain close ties with Iran, while others emphasize Iraqi nationalism.

Despite internal differences, the bloc united behind Al-Maliki after weeks of negotiations following the November general election.

In Iraq’s power sharing system, the role of prime minister traditionally goes to a Shiite Muslim, while the speaker of parliament is Sunni and the presidency is held by a Kurd.

This arrangement has shaped the current talks between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions over the formation of the next government.

Parliament has already taken a key step by electing a speaker last month.’

The next stage is the election of a new president, who will then formally task a prime minister nominee with forming a government.

Al-Maliki’s nomination sets the stage for intense political bargaining in the coming weeks.

He would be expected to secure enough support from rival blocs and independent lawmakers to win a confidence vote in parliament.

The former prime minister leads the State of Law Coalition, one of the most organized and influential groups within the Shiite political camp.

His leadership style is seen by allies as firm and decisive, though critics describe it as centralized and confrontational.

Al-Maliki’s political career has also been marked by controversy. During and after his time in office, he faced accusations of corruption, mismanagement and policies that deepened sectarian divisions.

He was also criticized for failing to prevent the rapid advance of the Daesh group in 2014, which ultimately led to his departure from office.
Despite these criticisms, he has managed to retain significant influence through party networks and parliamentary alliances.

The outgoing prime minister, Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani, is expected to remain in a caretaker role until a new government is formed. His tenure has focused on economic stabilization and balancing relations with regional and international partners.

Al-Maliki’s potential return to power could signal a shift in priorities. Observers say it may strengthen the role of established political elites and reshape Iraq’s relations with neighboring countries.

For many Iraqis, the nomination has revived debates about political renewal versus continuity. Some citizens express concern about returning to figures associated with past instability, while others prioritize experience over change.

Security, economic reform and public services remain among the top challenges facing the next government. Any prime minister will also have to manage public frustration over corruption and unemployment.

The Coordination Framework has emphasized unity and stability as reasons for backing Al-Maliki. Its leaders argue that internal cohesion within the majority bloc is essential to avoid prolonged political paralysis.

As negotiations continue, Iraq stands at another critical juncture in its democratic process. Whether Al-Maliki ultimately returns to the premiership will depend on his ability to build consensus beyond his core supporters.

The phone call covered evolving political and security situations across the region, with both sides emphasising the importance of dialogue, de-escalation, and cooperation to maintain regional stability. Officials highlighted the longstanding strategic partnership between Saudi Arabia and the United States as a foundation for addressing shared challenges.

Prince Faisal also conducted separate calls with Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr bin Hamad Al-Busaidi and Türkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. These discussions underscored Saudi Arabia’s active diplomatic outreach and its role as a key regional interlocutor amid shifting geopolitical dynamics.

According to official statements, the conversations focused on developments affecting regional security, diplomatic initiatives aimed at reducing tensions, and coordination on political solutions to ongoing conflicts. The talks come at a time when the Middle East faces multiple overlapping crises requiring sustained diplomatic engagement.

Saudi Arabia has increasingly positioned itself as a hub for regional dialogue, hosting talks and maintaining open communication channels with regional and international partners. Analysts note that Riyadh’s engagement with Washington, Ankara, and Muscat reflects a broader strategy of balanced diplomacy.

The exchange with the US secretary of state reaffirmed mutual commitments to consultation on issues such as regional security architecture, freedom of navigation, and responses to humanitarian challenges. Both sides reportedly agreed on the need for continued coordination as situations evolve.

Prince Faisal’s conversation with the Omani foreign minister highlighted the close ties between the two Gulf neighbours and their shared interest in promoting stability through diplomacy. Oman has long played a mediating role in regional disputes, making coordination with Muscat strategically significant.

Meanwhile, discussions with Türkiye’s foreign minister focused on broader regional developments, including conflict resolution efforts and political transitions in parts of the Middle East. Saudi-Turkish relations have seen renewed engagement in recent years, particularly on regional security and economic cooperation.

Diplomatic observers say the flurry of calls indicates intensified regional diplomacy as governments seek to manage risks stemming from ongoing conflicts, energy security concerns, and shifting alliances. Saudi Arabia’s outreach signals an effort to align positions and avoid escalation.

The Saudi foreign minister’s engagements also reflect the kingdom’s emphasis on multilateral dialogue rather than unilateral action. By engaging with diverse partners, Riyadh aims to contribute to consensus-building and coordinated responses.

Regional developments discussed are believed to include political negotiations, security conditions, and humanitarian considerations, though officials did not disclose specific details. Such discretion is common in high-level diplomatic communications.

Saudi Arabia has consistently stated that political solutions and dialogue remain the most effective means of resolving regional disputes. The latest talks reinforce this stance and demonstrate continued diplomatic momentum.

As global attention remains focused on the Middle East, sustained communication between key regional and international actors is seen as essential to prevent further instability. Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic activity positions it as a central player in shaping regional responses.

Officials are expected to maintain close contact in the coming weeks as developments continue to unfold. The discussions highlight the importance of proactive diplomacy in navigating a complex and rapidly changing regional landscape.

The process, overseen by interim leader Ahmed Al-Sharaa, marks a significant milestone in Syria’s post-conflict reconstruction and nation-building efforts.

The new assembly, which will serve a renewable 30-month mandate, is designed to guide Syria through its transitional phase, implementing legislative functions under a temporary constitution while preparing the groundwork for a permanent constitution and future elections.

Sharaa emphasized that the parliament’s formation reflects Syria’s commitment to structured governance and orderly political development after more than 13 years of civil conflict.

“The transitional parliament is a vital step in restoring governance and ensuring that Syria’s future is shaped through participation, accountability, and national priorities,” Sharaa said. “Our goal is stability, inclusion, and creating institutions that serve the Syrian people.”

More than 1,500 candidates registered for the assembly, reflecting a diverse spectrum of professionals, educators, business leaders, and civic-minded citizens. While 14 percent of candidates are women, the process underscores growing opportunities for female participation in Syria’s political life.

Among those running is Syrian-American Henry Hamra, the first Jewish candidate to stand for a Syrian parliamentary seat since the 1940s, highlighting the inclusive and pluralistic approach being encouraged.

Under the transitional rules, Sharaa will appoint 70 representatives, while the remaining two-thirds of the 210-member body will be selected by local committees. These committees, composed of civic leaders and community representatives, ensure that the voices of ordinary Syrians are integrated into governance.

Around 6,000 citizens are participating in the selection process, reflecting widespread engagement and enthusiasm for shaping Syria’s post-conflict political landscape.

Candidates must demonstrate a commitment to Syria’s unity and development, ensuring that the new parliament focuses on constructive legislation, economic recovery, and national reconciliation.

Sharaa and his team have emphasized transparency and integrity, creating an environment where new leaders can emerge and contribute meaningfully to Syria’s governance.

The transitional parliament will play a crucial role in shaping Syria’s economic, social, and international future. Among its priorities are signing and ratifying international agreements, supporting post-conflict reconstruction, and promoting sustainable development.

Candidates such as Hala Al-Qudsi, a member of Damascus’s electoral committee, have expressed dedication to advancing Syria’s national interests while fostering constructive dialogue with regional neighbors.

Efforts are also underway to expand participation over time. Negotiations are ongoing with Kurdish and Druze communities to integrate civil and administrative institutions into the central government, ensuring that more regions can benefit from the transitional process.

Sharaa has stressed that political engagement will continue to broaden as stability returns, laying the foundation for eventual direct elections.

Observers note that this transitional assembly represents a forward-looking approach to governance, emphasizing order, stability, and the creation of capable institutions after years of conflict.

Citizens like Louay Al-Arfi, a retired civil servant in Damascus, have welcomed the initiative as a necessary step toward building trust in political structures and promoting civic participation.

The formation of Syria’s transitional parliament is more than a procedural milestone—it is a symbol of resilience, renewal, and hope. By establishing structured governance, engaging local communities, and empowering a new generation of leaders, Syria is charting a path toward long-term stability and inclusive development.

With ongoing efforts to expand representation, enhance participation, and strengthen institutions, the transitional parliament is set to become a cornerstone of Syria’s revival.

As the nation rebuilds, the assembly provides a platform for constructive governance, demonstrating that even after decades of conflict, Syria is taking meaningful steps toward a stable, prosperous, and united future.

True commitment to justice means standing with all oppressed people, regardless of faith—not just those who resemble us.

The Palestinian struggle has metamorphosed from a national liberation movement into a cause increasingly espoused by Islamists of all hues and ideologies. While it remains deeply emotional and significant for Muslims worldwide, this shift has introduced confusion—especially when difficult questions are raised about the political and ideological framing of the issue.

The narrative that Islamist intellectuals have carefully constructed begins to collapse like a house of cards when confronted with uncomfortable questions—questions often left unanswered or deliberately obscured. But why ask such questions at all? Isn’t this just whataboutery?

Yes, it can be. But when used sincerely, whataboutery is a way to scratch the bottom and understand a position that one was trying to hide behind large words and sophisticated vocabulary.

Since October 7, many Muslims have declared, “To stand with Gaza is to stand with humanity.” This frames the Palestinian struggle as a universal moral issue—transcending religion and nation. Yet in the same breath, many ask, “Where are the Arab and Muslim countries?”

Wait—if this is a humanitarian crisis, why appeal to Arab regimes that are openly complicit with imperialist powers? And if the call is rooted in ummah and religious solidarity, then why invoke the language of universal humanity?

At the rhetorical level, it’s about “humanity”; but at a deeper level, it’s clearly framed as a crisis of the ummah, to the exclusion of others. The contradiction reveals a fundamental confusion—not just about Palestine, but about many critical questions facing Muslims today.

Should Israel be opposed as part of religious faith or for its actions in Gaza? The answer, often, is both. Is the Jewish people an eternal enemy, or is the enmity grounded in the ongoing genocide against Palestinians? The line is blurred.

Many cheer when Israelis—soldiers or civilians—are killed, making no moral distinction. The now-viral meme “Of course I support LGBT: Let’s Go Bomb Tel Aviv” is not just tasteless; it’s a genocidal fantasy, echoing cries for a second Holocaust. Forget soldiers—there is often no concern even for Israeli children, while outrage for Palestinian children is rightfully widespread.

This selective empathy, this moral hypocrisy, stains the integrity of the cause. And unless we confront it honestly, we risk replacing one injustice with another.

Not all people living in Israel, and certainly not all Jewish people, are complicit in the “genocide”. There are Jewish voices who have spoken-up against Israel’s far-right groups. But where are the Muslim equivalents of such Jewish voices? Where are the visible Jewish-Muslim brotherhood platforms actively resisting antisemitism and calling for hating the oppression and not the jewish people in letter and Spirit?

The increasing Islamization of the Palestinian cause has effectively narrowed the space for such solidarity to emerge from the Muslim side. Instead of expanding the struggle into a broader coalition for justice, it has been boxed into religious identity and issue—shrinking the possibility of building alliances that transcends faith and can talk about pressing issues .

Muslims must reconsider the nature of their solidarity—moving beyond a reaction rooted solely in religious identity. Instead of supporting the Palestinian cause merely because the victims are co-religionists, solidarity must be grounded in a deeper, more critical and humane response to human suffering.

True commitment to justice means standing with all oppressed people, regardless of faith—not just those who resemble us. Communalizing the struggle not only weakens its moral foundation but also isolates it from broader global movements for justice.

The Palestinian cause—and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict—deserves to be part of a larger, more inclusive struggle for dignity, freedom, and shared humanity, rising above narrow religious or cultural divisions toward a just future for both peoples.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Dr. Alajmi began his post by recalling some of the darkest episodes in recent Islamic history: “Iran attacked peaceful worshippers in the Grand Mosque in Makkah more than once.” He referenced the 1987 tragedy during Hajj when Iranian pilgrims staged a violent protest, leading to hundreds of deaths.

“In 1987, it attempted to occupy the Grand Masjid,” he wrote, a reference to the violent confrontation in which Saudi security forces and foreign pilgrims perished. “In 1989,” he continued, “it killed many and smuggled weapons and explosives with the intention of ruining the Masjid and terrorizing pilgrims.”

Dr. Alajmi then traced what he called Iran’s “trail of terrorism” throughout the region, beginning with its actions in the Gulf. “Iran bombed Kuwait several times, practised terrorism, hijacked aeroplanes, and attempted to assassinate its emir in the 1980s,” he wrote. He further highlighted Iran’s enduring occupation of three Emirati islands, calling attention to the UAE’s long-standing territorial dispute with Tehran over Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs.

In one of his more poignant statements, he turned to the region of Ahwaz, a majority-Arab area in Iran. “Iran occupied Ahwaz—13 times the area of Palestine—killed its people, tortured them, and plundered their wealth.” He emphasized that this forgotten region suffers systematic oppression despite being rich in oil and resources. “Its people are Arab Muslims, yet they remain forgotten,” he implied.

Turning to Syria, Dr. Alajmi condemned Iran’s military presence and support for Bashar al-Assad: “Iran occupied much of Syria, killed hundreds of thousands, tortured them in various ways, and displaced millions.” In Yemen, he declared, “Iran occupied Sana’a, displaced its people, and killed many Yemenis,” referring to Tehran’s backing of the Houthi militia.

On Iraq, he was equally harsh: “Iran occupied Iraq, displacing millions of its people, killing hundreds of thousands, and spreading corruption throughout all parts of Iraq.” He accused Iranian influence of hollowing out Iraqi state institutions, eroding sovereignty, and fueling sectarian divisions.

Dr. Alajmi did not stop there. “It caused murder in Lebanon,” he said, citing Tehran’s support of Hezbollah and its political interference. He also referenced Bahrain, saying Iran “moved its proxies… where they killed, burned, and destroyed until the state almost collapsed.”

All of this, he warned, cannot be dismissed as isolated events. “Much, much more corruption was spread by successive Iranian governments,” he wrote. For him, the consistent pattern of aggression points to a broader agenda of domination under the guise of revolution and resistance.

In a striking and controversial turn, Dr. Alajmi drew a direct comparison between Iran and Israel. “In contrast, the Zionists occupied Palestine,” he wrote. “Which of the two is more corrupt and corrupting in our Islamic and Arab world? And which of the two is more evil?”

By posing this comparison, he challenged a long-standing dogma in Arab political discourse—that Israel alone is the region’s primary source of suffering. His words reflect a growing Gulf sentiment that questions Iran’s ideological hypocrisy: using the Palestinian cause as a cover while destabilizing Arab states and targeting Sunni populations.

His post has resonated widely, especially among Gulf citizens who have lived through decades of Iranian-backed unrest. In an age of shifting alliances and increasing calls for regional self-determination, Dr. Alajmi’s message is a call for clarity: “We must confront the real source of destruction in our region—not just the familiar enemy, but the one cloaked in religious slogans and revolutionary slogans.”

Shaykh Dr. Daghash ibn Shabib Al-Ajmy is a prominent Salafi scholar from Kuwait. He holds a PhD in Usool ud-Deen from Kuwait University and has served as an imam, khateeb, and professor since 1999. He studied under renowned scholars such as Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, and Shaykh Rabee’ al-Madkhali. Dr. Al-Ajmy has authored and verified several respected Islamic works, and holds ijazaat in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim from over ten senior scholars.

But Indian Muslims must pause and reflect. Are we seen as comrades in these causes, or merely as expendable emotional masses?

Indian Muslims are among the most emotionally responsive people when it comes to the global Muslim narrative. We protest for Gaza, chant for Palestine, and stand in solidarity with Muslims in far-off lands — from Iraq to Syria, from Myanmar to Sudan. But when we look back at what the so-called Ummah has done in return for us, the answer is chillingly clear: nothing.

Despite being home to one of the largest Muslim populations on earth — over 200 million — Indian Muslims have never had a seat at the table of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Not once in its five-decade existence has this body, which claims to represent global Muslim interests, offered us any representation or voice. This deliberate exclusion begs a serious question: why do Indian Muslims continue to sacrifice their time, emotions, and sometimes even freedom, for a “brotherhood” that has consistently ignored and sidelined them?

Historical Snub: The 1969 Rabat Conference

Let us revisit a painful yet revealing moment in history. In 1969, during the first Islamic Summit in Rabat, Morocco, India was invited to participate. Representing India was Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, a respected Muslim statesman who would later become President of India. Yet, under pressure from Pakistan, India was unceremoniously shown the door. This wasn’t merely a diplomatic slight — it was a clear message from the Muslim world: your faith is not enough. Your political identity — as an Indian — is a disqualifier.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, under the guise of representing 57 Muslim-majority countries, chose to side with Pakistan’s insecurities over India’s reality. And from that moment onward, Indian Muslims were treated as outsiders in Islamic diplomacy. One of the world’s largest Muslim populations became invisible in the OIC’s corridors.

The Illusion of Ummah: What Are We Marching For?

Despite this snub, Indian Muslims continue to march passionately for causes like Palestine. They protest Israel’s actions, mourn Gaza’s dead, and share viral slogans of unity. But do Palestinians, or the Arab states, reciprocate this solidarity?

India’s position on the Palestine-Israel conflict has been nuanced, and while it still supports a two-state solution, its growing ties with Israel have been met with strategic silence from Arab capitals. They don’t criticize India, but the Ummah doesn’t protest for Indian Muslims the way Indian Muslims protest for it.

We romanticize Iran — forgetting that Iranian proxies like the Fatemiyoun Brigade killed thousands of Muslims in Syria. We chant the names of Turkish leaders who have more business deals with Israel than speeches about Gaza. We cling to a one-sided idea of the Ummah that refuses to acknowledge us.

Historical Loyalty for Foreign Thrones

This is not new. In the 1920s, Indian Muslims organized the Khilafat Movement to defend the Ottoman Caliphate. The irony? The Ottomans never ruled India. Our ancestors had no direct stake in Turkish affairs. Yet we mobilized nationwide protests, boycotted British goods, and even clashed with colonial authorities — all for a distant throne in Istanbul.

In hindsight, what did the Turks ever do for us? The Caliphate collapsed, Turkey became secular under Atatürk, and Indian Muslims gained nothing from the movement — except perhaps a precedent of misdirected loyalty.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — often quoted by modern secularists and even Muslim youth today — was brutally honest in his analysis. He wrote that for many Muslims, the idea of the Ummah superseded national identity. In Thoughts on Pakistan, he cautioned that such a mindset made political loyalty to the nation-state difficult.

Many labelled him a bigot back then. But today, his words resonate more than ever. The hypocrisy is stark: we use Ambedkar as a shield in domestic debates while ignoring his core warnings about divided loyalties and misplaced priorities.

Time to Wake Up

Today, Israel’s war with Hamas evokes mass outrage. Rightly so — civilian casualties are a tragedy. But that energy, that anger, that time — could it not also be directed toward our own local causes?

Thousands of Indian Muslim youth are unemployed. Our schools are crumbling. Our institutions are infiltrated by radicals who don’t empower, but exploit. Women in our community still struggle for basic education and healthcare. Where is our outrage for that?

Why not march for better schooling in Bihar? Why not raise slogans for economic reforms in Uttar Pradesh? Why not channel our collective passion into building libraries, funding scholarships, and creating think tanks? Why must we always be foot soldiers in someone else’s geopolitical war?

A Final Thought

Palestine deserves justice. So do the people of Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and every other place ravaged by violence. But Indian Muslims must pause and reflect. Are we seen as comrades in these causes, or merely as expendable emotional masses? If the OIC can reject us, if Arab regimes can ignore us, if Iran can manipulate us, if Turkey can exploit us — shouldn’t we stop bleeding for them blindly?

The Ummah is a powerful spiritual idea, but as a political reality, it is highly selective. And in that selectivity, Indian Muslims have always been left out.

It’s time we stopped marching for a club that won’t even give us a visitor’s pass.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The targeted organization, Addameer, a Ramallah-based legal NGO founded in 1991, is widely known for providing legal representation to Palestinian political prisoners and detainees held in Israeli custody. According to U.S. authorities, Addameer maintains “long-standing affiliation” with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a secular Marxist faction classified as a terrorist group by both the U.S. and Israel.

While Addameer did not issue an immediate response, the move has triggered renewed debate over the politicization of humanitarian work in conflict zones. The U.S. accuses the organization of supporting the military wings of Palestinian groups, including Hamas, under the veil of aid and advocacy.

A History of Tensions

Addameer has long been a point of contention between Israel and international human rights organizations. In 2022, Israeli forces raided its offices, claiming the NGO funneled funds to terror networks. The United Nations strongly criticized the raid, stating that Israel failed to provide “credible evidence” and emphasized that Addameer was engaged in “critical humanitarian, legal, and development work in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

The NGO collaborates with major rights watchdogs including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and is a member of the World Organization Against Torture. Despite these affiliations, the Israeli government maintains that the group exploits its legal platform to support extremist agendas.

Advocacy and Accusations

The recent sanctions follow a formal request submitted in February by the Zachor Legal Institute, an Israeli-American group that claims to combat antisemitism and terrorism. The letter, signed by 44 additional organizations, urged the U.S. Treasury to act against Addameer. Zachor’s president, Marc Greendorfer, welcomed the decision, stating: “We are very pleased to see the Treasury following up on our request… Foreign actors spreading hate and violence must be stopped.”

The Treasury’s action reportedly relied in part on undisclosed intelligence provided by the Israeli Security Agency. Critics argue that such evidence remains unverifiable and shrouded in secrecy, casting doubt on the transparency of the designation process.

Human Rights in the Crossfire

Addameer’s work has drawn international attention for its legal defense of Palestinian detainees, including Salah Hammouri, a French-Palestinian human rights lawyer who was arrested by Israel in 2022. That incident was referenced in the U.S. State Department’s human rights report under a section titled “Retaliation Against Human Rights Defenders.”

As the conflict in Gaza intensifies and humanitarian needs escalate, the Treasury’s crackdown is likely to fuel further criticism from civil society groups who argue that legitimate humanitarian aid risks being criminalized.

With geopolitical tensions at a boiling point and humanitarian efforts under increasing scrutiny, the latest U.S. sanctions underscore the fragile intersection between aid, activism, and national security policy in one of the world’s most volatile regions.