The International Criminal Court (ICC) has long presented itself as the guardian of international justice, the arbiter of crimes too grave to be addressed within national jurisdictions. Yet its latest actions, issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, reveal a troubling undercurrent—one that raises serious questions about the court’s legitimacy, jurisdiction, and impartiality.

Israel’s response was swift and unequivocal. Rejecting the ICC’s jurisdiction outright, Netanyahu’s office branded the warrants as “absurd” and “without foundation.” It is not the first time Israel has clashed with the ICC. As a nation that is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, Israel has consistently maintained that the court has no authority over its actions or its citizens. The appeal filed this week reiterates that stance while exposing the political theatre at the heart of this legal manoeuvre.

The reaction from the international community has been predictably fragmented, underscoring not only the political nature of the ICC’s actions but also the fraught geopolitical landscape in which they unfold.

Hungary, always the maverick within European circles, invited Netanyahu for a state visit, offering assurances that he would not face arrest. France, while not as brazenly supportive, cited legal immunity for Netanyahu, recognising that the ICC’s jurisdiction simply does not extend to non-signatory states like Israel. Italy, chairing the G7, took a more diplomatic line, calling for unity among global powers while subtly questioning the practicality of enforcing these warrants.

The United Kingdom, however, has found itself in a characteristically awkward position. Foreign Secretary David Lammy affirmed that Britain would comply with its obligations as a signatory to the Rome Statute. Yet, in a telling display of realpolitik, the UK recently hosted IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi for high-level meetings—a tacit acknowledgment of the enduring strategic partnership between the two nations. It is the kind of diplomatic tightrope that Britain has mastered, but one wonders how long such balancing acts can be sustained.

Across the Atlantic, the United States has taken an entirely different tack. Under previous administrations, Washington has not hesitated to challenge the ICC, especially when its investigations threatened American interests or those of its allies. In 2020, sanctions were imposed on ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in response to her inquiries into Afghanistan and Palestine. Now, reports suggest that further sanctions against current Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan KC are being considered, with the incoming U.S. administration poised to deliver what it calls a “strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC.”

The message from Washington is clear: the ICC’s overreach will not be tolerated. And herein lies a profound irony. The very court designed to transcend politics has become entangled in it, wielded as a weapon against nations that fall outside its ideological favour.

At the heart of this saga lies a fundamental question: what is the ICC’s purpose? Is it truly an impartial body dedicated to upholding justice, or has it become a tool for the politically motivated prosecution of certain states while ignoring the transgressions of others? The focus on Israel, a democracy operating in a hostile region, stands in stark contrast to the court’s silence on egregious abuses in autocratic regimes worldwide.

For Israel, the stakes are existential. The ICC’s actions are not merely legal provocations; they are attempts to delegitimise the Jewish state on the global stage. By framing self-defence as criminality and equating acts of war with war crimes, the court risks undermining the very principles it claims to uphold.

For Britain, the ICC warrants present a moral and diplomatic conundrum. As a nation committed to international law, the UK cannot simply dismiss its obligations under the Rome Statute. Yet as a steadfast ally of Israel, Britain must also recognise the dangerous precedent these warrants set—not just for Israel, but for any democracy forced to defend itself against terrorism.

The ICC’s actions reveal a troubling bias, one that conflates legality with morality and ignores the complex realities of international conflict. If Britain fails to challenge this bias, it risks enabling the erosion of the very principles it seeks to protect.

The ICC’s pursuit of Netanyahu and Gallant is not just a test of Israel’s resilience; it is a test of the international community’s resolve to stand against the politicisation of justice. For the United States, this resolve may come in the form of sanctions and diplomatic pushback. For Britain, it must involve a critical examination of the ICC’s role and a firm defence of its ally.

History has shown us that the weaponisation of international law is a dangerous game. Today it is Israel in the dock; tomorrow it could be any nation that dares to prioritise its security over the court’s abstractions. The ICC must decide whether it will be a force for impartial justice or a pawn in the game of geopolitics. And the world must decide whether it will allow this charade to continue.

Across Europe, the dark tide of antisemitism and anti-Zionism are rising once again, with whispers of history’s most shameful chapters echoing ominously. The United Kingdom, though spared the extremes seen in nations like France and the Netherlands, is not immune. For British Jews, the steady drip of hostility—whether in the guise of anti-Zionism or outright Jew-hatred—is no longer something that can be ignored. What’s more troubling than the hate itself is the institutional failure to confront it, and the pervasive apathy that allows it to fester.

Let us be clear: Britain’s Jewish community has been an integral part of this country’s cultural, intellectual, and economic life for centuries. Yet today, the very foundations of that belonging feel increasingly precarious. One need only look to the events of recent months for evidence. When Hamas unleashed its atrocities on October 7, many in Britain reacted not with outrage at the slaughter of innocents, but with rallies on our streets where cries of “From the river to the sea” thinly veiled genocidal intent. Not protests for peace, but parades of hate.

The response of the British establishment to this wave of antisemitic vitriol has been appalling in its inadequacy. Politicians have offered mealy-mouthed platitudes, desperate to balance condemnations of terrorism with vague nods to “both sides.” Universities have remained silent while Jewish students are vilified. And law enforcement, rather than protecting British Jews, has often been conspicuous by its absence when mobs gather in the streets.

Antisemitism in Britain today is insidious, taking two primary forms. First, there is the old hatred, dressed in new clothes. This includes the virulent strain of antisemitism that has taken root in certain migrant communities—a problem that our leaders seem too cowardly to even name, let alone address. The fear of appearing intolerant has paralysed action, allowing a dangerous narrative to grow unchecked.

Second, there is the intellectualised form of antisemitism, now endemic on the political left, masquerading as “anti-Zionism.” This thinly disguised bigotry seeks to delegitimise the world’s only Jewish state while holding Jews collectively responsible for its existence. No other people are told their self-determination is inherently racist. No other nation is subjected to such relentless scrutiny. And yet, in Britain’s cultural and academic spheres, this pernicious double standard thrives.

The events of November 7 in Amsterdam should serve as a cautionary tale. Bands of so-called “youths” embarked on a self-declared “Jew hunt,” assaulting Israelis and Jews in the streets of a country once celebrated for its tolerance. British Jews watched in horror—not only at the violence but at the recognition that the forces at play in the Netherlands are alive here as well.

Britain’s failure to address these forces is nothing short of a national disgrace. Antisemitism is not just a Jewish problem; it is a societal rot that, if left unchecked, corrodes the very values we claim to cherish. Yet, our institutions respond with paralysing inertia, distracted by the politics of appeasement or paralysed by their own moral cowardice.

The Jewish diaspora in Britain has never asked for special treatment, only the simple right to live without fear. Fear of sending their children to universities where they might be ostracised for their faith. Fear of walking home from synagogue under the wrong set of streetlights. Fear of an increasingly hostile world that seems to have learned nothing from history.

This is a moment of reckoning for Britain. Will we defend the values of fairness, freedom, and dignity for all, or will we allow this growing hatred to go unchallenged, dragging us into the mire of indifference and complicity?

Antisemitism and its enabler, anti-Zionism, are societal poisons. If Britain wishes to remain the tolerant and just society it claims to be, it must confront these twin scourges head-on. Not with half-measures or hollow condemnations, but with decisive action—legislative, educational, and cultural. Anything less is an abdication of our moral responsibility and a betrayal of what this nation ought to stand for.

The time for excuses is over. Britain must rise to the challenge, not just for its Jewish community, but for its own soul. For if we allow this hatred to thrive, it will not stop with the Jews. It never does.

Hezbollah’s condemnation of media outlets for participating in an Israeli military press tour in southern Lebanon is as revealing as it is predictable. The group has accused these journalists of “crossing red lines,” portraying their actions as a betrayal of Lebanon’s sovereignty. But beneath this bluster lies something far more calculated: a desperate attempt to control the narrative and shield Hezbollah’s operations from the scrutiny of independent eyes.

For decades, Hezbollah has meticulously cultivated its image as the guardian of Lebanon’s sovereignty and the noble “resistance” against Israeli aggression. It has framed itself as a force defending the dignity of the Lebanese people while casting Israel as the perpetual villain. Yet this narrative is a mirage, crafted with the precision of a propagandist. Southern Lebanon has not been safeguarded by Hezbollah but transformed into a militarised zone, where civilian infrastructure is cynically repurposed to serve its military ambitions.

Rocket launchers are concealed in residential areas, tunnels snake beneath neighbourhoods, and civilian populations are used as shields for Hezbollah’s provocations against Israel. These tactics, in clear violation of international law, are carefully obscured from public view. Hezbollah’s media apparatus, led by outlets like Al-Manar, has long ensured that its version of events dominates the headlines, presenting its agenda as righteous resistance while suppressing dissenting voices.

The presence of independent journalists, particularly those who might report from an Israeli perspective, represents an existential threat to this charade. Their accounts could expose the grim reality of Hezbollah’s exploitation of southern Lebanon—a reality in which ordinary Lebanese citizens are used as pawns in a broader regional conflict orchestrated by Tehran. For Hezbollah, the truth is not just inconvenient; it is dangerous.

This latest outcry over journalists also betrays Hezbollah’s growing insecurity. Domestically, Lebanon is teetering on the brink of collapse, its economy in ruins and its people burdened by widespread corruption and political paralysis. Hezbollah’s entanglement in this crisis is undeniable. Its deep ties to Iran and its involvement in regional conflicts, from Syria to Yemen, have contributed to Lebanon’s isolation and decline. For many Lebanese citizens, the group’s rhetoric of resistance rings increasingly hollow against the backdrop of empty bank accounts and crumbling infrastructure.

Internationally, Hezbollah’s activities as a terrorist organisation have drawn condemnation from nations worldwide. Yet, instead of reckoning with its role in Lebanon’s decline, Hezbollah doubles down on its tactics, relying on propaganda and intimidation to maintain its grip on power. Independent reporting threatens to expose not just the group’s violations but the broader consequences of its stranglehold over Lebanon.

The free press is vital in such contexts. Far from “crossing red lines,” journalists who report on the realities in southern Lebanon are fulfilling a critical duty. Their work shines a light on the exploitation of civilian areas, the militarisation of everyday life, and the human cost of Hezbollah’s actions. For the international community, this transparency is essential to understanding the true dynamics of the Israeli-Lebanese border. For the Lebanese people, it is a step towards reclaiming their sovereignty from a group that has long acted in the name of resistance while holding their country hostage.

Hezbollah’s outrage is not about protecting Lebanon’s dignity or sovereignty; it is about protecting itself. The group thrives in the shadows, where its carefully constructed narratives can go unchallenged, and its actions can proceed without accountability. The presence of independent journalists disrupts this balance, threatening to expose the truth about Hezbollah’s exploitation of Lebanon and its people.

As supporters of truth and justice, we must reject Hezbollah’s attempts to suppress independent reporting. The international community has a duty to ensure that journalists can work without fear of reprisal, particularly in regions where authoritarian control of the narrative is the norm. For Lebanon, the stakes could not be higher. The people of southern Lebanon deserve to know the truth about the risks imposed upon them by Hezbollah’s agenda. Exposing these realities is not just a journalistic endeavour; it is an act of solidarity with those who have suffered in silence for too long.

Transparency is Hezbollah’s greatest fear, and rightly so. It lays bare the group’s duplicity, challenges its propaganda, and empowers those who seek a Lebanon free from its grasp. By supporting independent journalism, we take a stand not only for truth but for the rights of the Lebanese people to live without fear of exploitation and manipulation.

In an age where prejudices of all kinds are rightly subjected to unrelenting scrutiny, anti-Zionism occupies an unsettling and peculiar space. While bigotry in most of its forms is publicly condemned and often career-ending, hostility toward Zionism—the Jewish aspiration for national self-determination—not only remains acceptable in many circles but is often celebrated as a hallmark of intellectual and moral virtue. This glaring double standard demands examination, not least because it reveals so much about the peculiar ease with which society continues to dismiss, marginalise, and vilify Jews and their history.

Unlike overt antisemitism, which is easily recognised and usually denounced, anti-Zionism wears a disguise. It masquerades as a political critique, a righteous opposition to the actions of a particular state. Advocates of anti-Zionism are quick to claim that their objections are to Israel’s policies—or even its existence as a state—not to Jews per se. This distinction allows anti-Zionism to slip under the radar of public scrutiny, shielding itself from accusations of bigotry while perpetuating ideas that, in many cases, are undeniably antisemitic.

Zionism, stripped of the distortions often imposed upon it, is nothing more or less than the Jewish people’s assertion of their right to self-determination. This is a right routinely recognised for other peoples, celebrated in movements from Irish republicanism to Indian independence. Yet, in the case of the Jews, it is framed as an aberration, as if the idea of a Jewish homeland were some sinister exception to an otherwise acceptable rule.

This sleight of hand—portraying Zionism as uniquely objectionable—has allowed anti-Zionists to present their prejudices as noble and their biases as virtuous. Cloaked in the language of human rights, anti-Zionism offers its adherents the moral satisfaction of condemning oppression while perpetuating one of history’s oldest hatreds.

One reason anti-Zionism enjoys its peculiar immunity from criticism is that it taps into long-standing prejudices against Jews. For centuries, Jews have been cast as the "other"—a people apart, held collectively responsible for societal grievances and historical ills. Anti-Zionism is simply the latest iteration of this narrative, in which Israel, as the Jewish state, is not seen as a country like any other but as a repository for the world’s frustrations, its sins, and its hatreds.

To its detractors, Israel is not merely a state with policies they find objectionable; it is a symbol of all that is wrong in the world. Zionism, by extension, becomes a shorthand for imperialism, colonialism, and oppression, allowing anti-Zionists to frame their hostility as a stand against injustice. Yet, this narrative relies on the grotesque dehumanisation of Jews, reducing them to caricatures of power and privilege even as their history—and often their present—tells a far darker story of vulnerability and survival.

Part of anti-Zionism’s appeal lies in its simplicity. In a world of complex moral dilemmas, it offers a straightforward binary: Israel as the oppressor, Palestinians as the oppressed. Never mind that the reality of the conflict is infinitely more complicated, or that Israel’s population includes refugees from Arab lands, Holocaust survivors, and Jews from Ethiopia and beyond. To the anti-Zionist, such nuances are inconvenient distractions.

The Palestinian cause, whatever its merits, has been adopted as a moral rallying cry by those eager to champion victimhood and resistance. Israel, in this framework, is cast as the ultimate villain—a role it plays not because of the facts of the conflict but because it fits neatly into the anti-colonial narrative beloved by many on the political left. This narrative requires no understanding of history, no grappling with competing claims to land, and no acknowledgment of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. It demands only outrage, and anti-Zionism provides it in abundance.

Anti-Zionism thrives, in part, because it is championed by cultural elites. Academics, activists, and artists have elevated it to a position of social acceptability, presenting it as a legitimate critique of power and injustice. University campuses, in particular, have become breeding grounds for anti-Zionist sentiment, where Israel is singled out for condemnation while far greater abuses of human rights elsewhere are ignored.

This double standard is not a coincidence. It reflects a broader willingness to treat Jews and the Jewish state as uniquely problematic. No other country’s right to exist is questioned with the same fervour; no other people’s claim to self-determination is met with such relentless hostility. The fact that anti-Zionism often leads to the harassment of Jewish students or the targeting of Jewish institutions is treated as an unfortunate side effect rather than a predictable outcome.

The social acceptability of anti-Zionism has real consequences. It emboldens those who seek not just to criticise Israel but to delegitimise its very existence. It provides a respectable veneer for antisemitism, allowing hatred to flourish in spaces where it might otherwise be challenged. And it isolates Jewish communities, forcing them to defend their right to exist in a way that no other group is ever asked to do.

Moreover, anti-Zionism distorts the discourse around Israel and the Middle East, reducing it to a battle of slogans and accusations. It shuts down debate, entrenches divisions, and makes the pursuit of peace infinitely more difficult.

Anti-Zionism is not the harmless political critique it claims to be. It is a prejudice disguised as principle, a hostility that perpetuates ancient hatreds under the banner of progress. It is long past time to confront this hypocrisy and hold it to the same standards we apply to other forms of bigotry.

Criticism of Israel, like criticism of any state, is fair and necessary. But to single out the Jewish state for delegitimisation, to deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination, or to treat Zionism as uniquely sinister, is not justice. It is prejudice. And if society truly seeks to root out all forms of bigotry, it must begin by acknowledging this one for what it is.

Today, as the world observes the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, we are reminded of the solemn duty to confront violence and injustice wherever it occurs. Yet this year, the day is marred by a deafening and wilful silence—a refusal to acknowledge the horrors inflicted on Israeli women during the October 7 Hamas massacre. This silence, coupled with the broader global indifference to the suffering of women across the Shia Crescent, is not just a moral failure but a betrayal of the very principles this day seeks to uphold.

On that dark day, Israeli women were not merely caught in the crossfire of conflict; they were deliberately targeted by Hamas terrorists in acts of unspeakable brutality. Reports of sexual violence, abductions, and systematic dehumanisation emerged. These were not incidental atrocities but calculated acts designed to instil terror. And yet, the international response has been characterised by an almost eerie absence of outrage. Many who claim to champion women’s rights have chosen to look away, while some have gone so far as to justify or minimise these crimes in the name of political expediency.

This silence echoes the broader global apathy towards the plight of women living under regimes of terror across the Shia Crescent. In Iran, women are beaten, imprisoned, and murdered for daring to remove their hijabs or demand basic freedoms. In Afghanistan, under Taliban rule, women have been erased from public life altogether, barred from education and employment. Yazidi women suffered years of enslavement and unimaginable abuse at the hands of ISIS. In Gaza, women endure oppression under Hamas, whose brutality is masked by its self-proclaimed role as the "voice of Palestine."

And yet, the world turns a blind eye. The atrocities committed against these women are too often excused or ignored, as long as the perpetrators drape themselves in the cause of "resistance" or invoke the banner of anti-Zionism. This selective morality has created a grotesque double standard, where some victims are worthy of sympathy and others are sacrificed on the altar of political narratives.

The international community’s failure to condemn this violence is not only hypocritical but dangerous. It emboldens the perpetrators and reinforces the impunity with which they operate. Worse still, it signals to the victims that their suffering will remain invisible, their voices unheard, and their rights unworthy of defence.

On this International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, we must ask: where is the global outrage for Israeli women raped and murdered by Hamas? Where is the solidarity for Iranian women risking their lives to defy tyranny? Where is the condemnation of regimes and terror organisations that use women as tools of oppression and violence?

The truth is stark: much of the world is willing to turn its back on these women as long as doing so serves a convenient political narrative. This moral abdication betrays the very essence of this day. Violence against women is not a partisan issue. It cannot be justified by ideology, nor can it be selectively ignored.

If we are to take the principles of this day seriously, we must demand justice for all women who suffer violence—whether they are Israeli mothers mourning their murdered children, Yazidi girls seeking freedom, or Iranian women defiantly removing their hijabs. We must reject the dangerous relativism that shields perpetrators and silences victims.

Let this day serve not as a hollow gesture but as a rallying cry for universal justice. Let it remind us that violence against women—wherever it occurs, whoever commits it—must be met with unyielding condemnation. Anything less is a betrayal, not only of the victims but of the values we claim to uphold.

The fight to eliminate violence against women must be unflinching and unapologetic. Only then can we truly honour the purpose of this day and ensure that no woman, no matter where she lives, is left to suffer in silence.

Art has always been a sanctuary—a space where human creativity transcends politics and prejudice. It is a realm where the stories of individuals, no matter their background or nationality, are given a stage to shine. Or at least, that is how it should be. Increasingly, however, Israeli voices are being systematically silenced, excluded, and erased from cultural spaces under the flimsiest of pretexts.

The recent treatment of Israeli choreographer Dor Eldar provides yet another chilling example of this trend. Eldar’s film, Rave, was accepted and scheduled to be shown at the Exeter International Dance Festival, a platform ostensibly dedicated to celebrating global artistic expression. Yet, at the last moment, Eldar was informed that his film would not be shown after all. The reason? Pressure from sponsors and other filmmakers who objected to the participation of an Israeli artist.

This was not a matter of merit or artistic value—far from it. It was a decision based purely on prejudice, a capitulation to the increasingly loud and aggressive voices that seek to vilify and delegitimise Israel and, by extension, all who bear its nationality. Eldar himself captured the gravity of the situation in his response: "I have always heard about anti-Semitism; now I know what it is and what it feels like to be excluded."

The arts have always served as a bridge, a means of fostering dialogue, understanding, and connection across divides. Yet, we are now witnessing a deeply disturbing trend: the weaponisation of the arts as a tool for enforcing political bias and exclusion.

What happened to Dor Eldar is not just an act of individual discrimination—it is part of a broader, more sinister movement. It represents the infiltration of ideological agendas into the cultural spaces that were once celebrated for their inclusivity and universality. Festivals like the Exeter International Dance Festival are meant to showcase the diversity of human creativity. Instead, they are being turned into platforms for censorship and exclusion.

The message being sent is clear: Israeli voices, regardless of their political affiliations or artistic intent, are unwelcome. This is not merely an attack on Israelis; it is an attack on the principles of artistic freedom and intellectual integrity.

This should serve as a wake-up call for anyone who believes in the values of free expression and open exchange. The silencing of Israeli voices is not just a problem for Israel or for the Jewish people—it is a problem for the entire cultural and intellectual world. If artists can be censored based on their nationality or the political pressures of a vocal minority, no creator is safe.

More broadly, it reflects the creeping cowardice of our cultural institutions. These are institutions that, when faced with the baying mob, too often choose appeasement over principle. By bowing to those who seek to exclude Israeli artists, the organisers of the Exeter International Dance Festival have abandoned the core tenets of artistic expression. They have shown that their commitment to inclusivity and freedom is nothing more than a hollow platitude, discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Dor Eldar’s exclusion is not just his personal tragedy—it is a moral failure of those who claim to stand for artistic freedom. It is incumbent upon us to call out this hypocrisy for what it is: a betrayal of the very values the arts are supposed to uphold.

This is not simply a question of supporting one Israeli artist; it is about defending the principle that art should remain above the petty machinations of political bias. It is about ensuring that no artist, regardless of their nationality, religion, or politics, is excluded because their very existence offends the sensibilities of the ideologically intolerant.

We must not let this moment pass in silence. We must demand accountability from those who caved to prejudice and fear. We must make it clear that art, in its truest form, is a celebration of humanity in all its complexity—a space where differences are explored, not erased.

By standing with Dor Eldar, we stand for freedom, for courage, and for the unassailable right of every artist to have their voice heard. To do otherwise is to allow the darkness of censorship and bigotry to snuff out the light of creativity that art was meant to foster.

The lawsuit filed in a US federal court by the families of victims from Hamas's barbaric October 7 massacre against the Islamic Republic of Iran is a moment of profound significance. It represents not just a legal challenge but a moral reckoning—a demand for accountability from a regime that has long operated with impunity while sponsoring terrorism across the globe.

This case targets Iran’s central role in financing, arming, and enabling Hamas, a group whose name is now synonymous with the atrocities of October 7. On that day, over 1,400 Israelis were murdered, hundreds kidnapped, and entire families destroyed in acts of unspeakable brutality. The victims’ families, now plaintiffs, are determined to expose the machinery of terror that allowed such an event to unfold.

At the core of the lawsuit is the allegation—well-supported by decades of evidence—that Iran, primarily through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is the lifeblood of Hamas. Tehran has not hidden its patronage, openly funneling money, weapons, and training to the group. What makes this case especially significant, however, is its potential to unseal classified Hamas documents. These papers could provide indisputable evidence of Iran's complicity in orchestrating the massacre, implicating not just the perpetrators on the ground but the architects behind them.

Iran’s role in sponsoring Hamas is no secret. It has long been the regime's strategy to act through proxies, allowing it to wage war against Israel without direct confrontation. The IRGC, often described as Iran’s paramilitary foreign policy arm, has been instrumental in turning Hamas into a well-armed, ideologically charged militant force. From funding its operations to training its fighters, Iran has ensured that its proxy in Gaza can function as an extension of its anti-Zionist, anti-Western ambitions.

Yet, this case is not without its challenges. While the United States has designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, the legal and diplomatic complexities of holding a sovereign nation accountable remain formidable. Sovereign immunity laws often shield nations from the consequences of their actions, making enforcement of judgments against them an uphill battle. But even if this case encounters such barriers, its symbolic value cannot be understated. By pursuing justice through the courts, these families are forcing the world to confront Iran's role in the global architecture of terror.

There is a bitter irony in the fact that, while Hamas’s atrocities were broadcast to the world in horrifying clarity, Iran remains ensconced in a narrative that seeks to obscure its direct involvement. This lawsuit aims to pierce that veil, exposing the financial flows, logistical support, and ideological backing that Tehran has provided to Hamas. It is a reminder that terrorism is not a grassroots phenomenon; it is cultivated, funded, and directed by state actors with clear agendas.

For Israel, this case serves as a sobering reminder of the multifaceted nature of its security challenges. The IDF battles enemies at its borders, but those enemies draw strength from a much larger network of state sponsorship and ideological warfare. For the Jewish diaspora, particularly in Europe and the United States, this lawsuit is a stark call to action: to recognise that the threats faced by Israel are not confined to the Middle East but have global implications.

What is at stake here is not merely compensation for the victims’ families, though that is a just and noble cause. This lawsuit represents an attempt to strike at the heart of Iran’s operational networks, to challenge the impunity with which it has acted for decades. If successful, it could set a precedent for holding state sponsors of terrorism accountable, demonstrating that no regime, no matter how emboldened, is beyond the reach of justice.

The families pursuing this case are not just seeking redress for their personal tragedies; they are fighting for the principle that those who enable terror must answer for their crimes. It is a moral imperative that transcends borders and political alignments. The world must take notice, not only of the suffering these families have endured but of the systemic evil that allowed such atrocities to occur. Justice demands it, and history will not look kindly on those who fail to answer this call

Women’s health has, for too long, been relegated to the margins of medical innovation. Decades of inertia have left many essential technologies virtually unchanged, perpetuating systemic neglect of a vital sector. This stagnation is finally being challenged by groundbreaking advancements such as those led by OCON Therapeutics, an Israeli-founded company at the forefront of women’s health technology.

At the centre of OCON’s trailblazing work is its patented intrauterine drug delivery platform—a spherical, three-dimensional device poised to transform how uterine conditions are treated. This novel technology not only addresses unmet medical needs but also heralds a new chapter in how we approach women’s healthcare globally.

Daniela Schardinger, VP of Marketing & Medical Affairs at OCON Therapeutics, aptly notes, “The technologies available in women’s health today are 60 years old.” From T-shaped IUDs to traditional diagnostic tools like ultrasounds, the sector has relied on antiquated methods that fail to meet modern healthcare standards.

OCON’s intrauterine platform represents a paradigm shift. At its core is a dynamic, spherical stent made up of interconnected titanium balls. Once inserted, the device adapts seamlessly to the unique contours of the uterus. Its design enables it to carry and deliver a range of therapeutics—including hormones, drugs, and other treatments—directly to the target area.

Keren Leshem, CEO of OCON Therapeutics, in several interviews has emphasised the adaptability of the device: “Our device not only transforms into a ball once inside the uterus, but the therapeutics on it adapt themselves to the specific condition being treated.” This ability to address a wide spectrum of uterine conditions—from contraception to complex diseases—makes OCON’s technology a versatile and game-changing solution.

The flagship product of OCON’s platform, the IUB Ballerine, is a non-hormonal copper contraceptive that has already garnered attention for its innovative approach. Unlike traditional IUDs, the Ballerine conforms to the uterus’s natural shape, enhancing comfort and safety while maintaining contraceptive efficacy.

However, the platform’s potential extends far beyond contraception. The spherical stent can deliver targeted therapies for a range of uterine health issues, such as endometriosis, fibroids, and even certain cancers. It is flexible in its application, capable of remaining in place for durations ranging from 30 minutes to five years, depending on the therapeutic goal.

This adaptability allows for personalised treatment plans that cater to individual needs, minimising side effects and optimising outcomes. Such precision medicine represents the future of healthcare, moving away from one-size-fits-all solutions to more nuanced, patient-centred care.

Israel’s reputation as a global hub for innovation is well-earned. With its dynamic ecosystem of start-ups, cutting-edge research institutions, and a culture of entrepreneurial resilience, the country consistently punches above its weight in the global medical technology arena.

OCON Therapeutics exemplifies this spirit. The company’s intrauterine platform not only addresses long-ignored gaps in women’s health but also showcases Israel’s ability to leverage advanced engineering and medical expertise to create transformative solutions. By tackling systemic challenges with ingenuity, OCON is setting a benchmark for medical advancements that prioritise both practicality and impact.

The science behind OCON’s device is rooted in the principles of stent technology, widely used in cardiovascular medicine. This crossover into women’s health illustrates the potential of applying existing technologies to neglected sectors. The use of titanium, a biocompatible material, ensures durability and minimises the risk of adverse reactions, making it a highly reliable solution for long-term use.

OCON’s stent also opens new avenues for drug delivery systems. By concentrating treatments directly at the source, the platform minimises systemic exposure, reducing side effects and improving efficacy. This precision aligns with the broader trend of targeted therapies in modern medicine, further underscoring the device’s revolutionary nature.

OCON Therapeutics’ innovation sheds light on the broader issue of equity in medical research and development. Women’s health, historically underfunded and under-prioritised, has suffered from a lack of investment in research and technology. OCON’s work challenges this paradigm, demonstrating the profound impact that focused innovation can have on improving quality of life.

By addressing conditions often sidelined in the broader healthcare narrative, OCON is not only improving individual outcomes but also influencing how women’s health is perceived and prioritised globally. Its technology has the potential to reduce healthcare disparities and set a precedent for other companies to follow suit.

The advancements pioneered by OCON Therapeutics represent more than just technological innovation—they symbolise a commitment to redefining how women’s health is valued and addressed. As the intrauterine platform gains traction in clinics and hospitals worldwide, it is clear that the future of women’s health is no longer constrained by outdated technologies and systemic neglect.

By fostering a culture of innovation and prioritising underserved sectors, Israel continues to serve as a model for how nations can lead in tackling global healthcare challenges. OCON’s success is a testament to what is possible when ingenuity, investment, and purpose converge. Let this be a rallying call for greater focus on women’s health—a vital area that impacts not just individuals, but the well-being of societies as a whole.

At We Believe in Israel, we champion stories of innovation and progress that demonstrate the positive global impact of Israeli ingenuity. OCON Therapeutics’ pioneering work is a testament to the power of determination and creativity in solving critical challenges. Let us continue to celebrate and support advancements that shape a better future for all.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) presents a critical yet under-examined element in the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While it was established in 1949 to provide temporary relief for Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, UNRWA has evolved into an entity that perpetuates, rather than resolves, the refugee issue. Its continued operations raise significant questions about the agency’s alignment with international legal norms, the Oslo Accords, and its impact on the geopolitical landscape.

At the heart of UNRWA’s controversy lies its unprecedented definition of Palestinian refugeehood. Unlike the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which operates under a mandate to provide durable solutions for refugees through repatriation, resettlement, or local integration, UNRWA uniquely permits refugee status to be inherited indefinitely. According to UNRWA’s own records, the initial population of 750,000 refugees in 1948 has expanded to over 5 million today—a nearly sevenfold increase. This exponential growth contrasts starkly with other global refugee populations, where numbers typically decline due to resettlement and integration initiatives.

Several studies by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), highlight that this hereditary definition not only violates UNHCR norms but also obstructs any realistic resolution of the refugee crisis. By perpetuating a narrative of grievance and victimhood, UNRWA has institutionalised a cycle of dependency, effectively ensuring that generations of Palestinians remain refugees in perpetuity.

The Oslo Accords, signed in 1993, represented a pivotal moment in Israeli-Palestinian relations, aiming to lay the groundwork for mutual recognition and eventual peace. A critical component of Oslo was the transfer of governance responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority (PA), including education, healthcare, and social services within Palestinian territories. This decentralisation was intended to build Palestinian self-reliance, reduce dependency on international aid, and prepare the PA for eventual statehood.

However, UNRWA’s operations have actively undermined this framework. By maintaining control over refugee camps and running parallel systems for education and healthcare, UNRWA has created enclaves of influence that bypass PA governance. A 2021 study by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) underscores that these camps often function as autonomous zones, fostering radicalisation and limiting the PA’s capacity to assert authority.

Moreover, UNRWA’s educational curriculum, documented extensively by organisations such as IMPACT-se, has been found to include antisemitic and anti-Israeli content. This directly contravenes Oslo’s emphasis on fostering coexistence and peace. Textbooks used in UNRWA schools frequently glorify violence and deny Israel’s right to exist, effectively indoctrinating a new generation into a cycle of hostility.

The financial operations of UNRWA further complicate its legitimacy. Historically, Western nations have borne the overwhelming burden of funding the organisation. By 1972, six Western countries had contributed $735 million to UNRWA, while the combined contributions of five wealthy Arab states amounted to just $8.5 million—barely 1% of the total. Today, the trend persists. A 2022 Congressional Research Service report noted that the United States remains UNRWA’s largest single donor, contributing approximately 30% of its $1.6 billion annual budget. In contrast, Arab states collectively account for a fraction of the funding.

This disparity raises significant ethical and practical concerns. UNRWA allocates approximately $298 per Palestinian refugee annually, compared to $2.80 per refugee in Sudan under UNHCR. This inequity not only diverts critical resources from more urgent global crises but also reinforces perceptions of a politicised agenda.

The intersection of UNRWA’s operations with terrorism is also a growing concern. Reports have revealed that UNRWA facilities, including schools and hospitals, have been used by Hamas to store weapons and ammunition. Moreover, documented instances of UNRWA employees actively participating in terrorist activities underscore systemic vulnerabilities within the organisation.

UNRWA’s operational framework, far from alleviating the plight of Palestinian refugees, has entrenched a system of dependency, radicalisation, and conflict. By deviating from international norms and undermining the Oslo Accords, the agency perpetuates the very crisis it was established to resolve. Without meaningful reform, UNRWA will continue to serve as a barrier to peace, rather than a bridge toward resolution. Policymakers must confront these realities and recalibrate their approach, ensuring that international aid serves the cause of stability and coexistence rather than perpetuating division and hostility.

Israel's remarkable ascent as a global powerhouse in artificial intelligence (AI) is more than a headline—it is a case study in resilience, strategic investment, and forward-thinking policy. A recent report places Israel firmly among the elite nations pioneering AI research, development, and application, reinforcing its reputation as a nation defined by ingenuity and problem-solving. For countries looking to foster their own innovation ecosystems, Israel’s experience offers valuable lessons in harnessing technology to drive economic growth, tackle societal challenges, and build global influence.

With over 3,500 AI startups and an impressive $9.2 billion in funding raised in 2022 alone, Israel’s AI sector demonstrates the country’s ability to channel creativity and entrepreneurship into transformative industries. Israeli advancements are shaping sectors as diverse as personalised medicine, autonomous vehicles, agriculture, and cybersecurity. These are not theoretical breakthroughs—they are practical innovations addressing real-world challenges, from improving healthcare systems to enhancing food security and mitigating cyber risks.

What sets Israel apart is its ability to convert cutting-edge research into impactful applications. This is a nation where academic excellence meets entrepreneurial ambition, creating technologies that are as commercially viable as they are revolutionary.

The Foundations of Israel’s Success

Israel’s extraordinary journey to becoming a global innovation hub is underpinned by a set of mutually reinforcing factors:

1. World-Class Education and Research
   Israel has prioritised education as a cornerstone of its national strategy, with institutions such as the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and the Hebrew University producing world-leading talent in AI and STEM fields. These centres of excellence not only fuel the local economy but also position Israel as an indispensable partner in global technological development.
2. A Resilient and Entrepreneurial Culture
   Faced with geopolitical challenges, Israel has cultivated a culture of resilience and adaptability. Its mandatory military service, especially within elite technology units like Unit 8200, equips young Israelis with advanced technical skills and a problem-solving mindset that permeates its startup ecosystem.
3. Proactive Government Policy
   The Israeli government has played a pivotal role in enabling innovation through initiatives such as the Israel Innovation Authority, which provides funding, infrastructure, and policy support for startups and research initiatives. Strategic tax incentives and the creation of innovation hubs have helped transform Israel into a global destination for investment in technology.
4. Collaborative Ecosystem
   The seamless integration of public, private, and academic sectors has created an environment where innovation thrives. Startups benefit from partnerships with universities and multinational corporations, ensuring that research is rapidly commercialised to meet both local and global needs.

Lessons for the International Community

Israel’s journey offers a roadmap for nations aspiring to build their own innovation ecosystems. It demonstrates that fostering a culture of creativity, investing in education, and encouraging collaboration across sectors can deliver transformative economic and societal benefits. Importantly, Israel’s model highlights the necessity of combining technical excellence with ethical responsibility, particularly in fields like AI where misuse poses significant risks.

As governments and organisations around the world grapple with challenges ranging from climate change to economic inequality, Israel's experience underscores the value of technological innovation as a force for good. Its AI advancements in areas like medical diagnostics and environmental sustainability are not only commercially successful but also geared towards addressing some of humanity’s most pressing challenges.

Israel’s role as a global leader in innovation is not merely a national success story—it is a beacon of what is possible when determination, talent, and strategic vision converge. From its emergence as a startup nation to its current position as an AI leader, Israel exemplifies the potential of technology to reshape economies and societies for the better.

For policymakers, the lesson is clear: the right mix of investment in talent, infrastructure, and collaborative networks can catalyse transformative change. Israel has shown that innovation is not the privilege of a few but the potential of any nation willing to embrace ambition and build for the future. This is a journey worth emulating—a model for creating not just technologies, but opportunities that can shape the world for generations to come.