Middle East
International Women’s Day is for the few, not the many | Opinions
Every March 8, the world is flooded with glossy campaigns urging us to “accelerate action” and “inspire inclusion”. International Women’s Day has become a polished, PR-friendly spectacle where corporate sponsors preach empowerment while the women most in need of solidarity are left to fend for themselves.
I can only hope that this year’s call to “accelerate action” means action for all women – not just those who fit neatly into corporate feminism, media-friendly activism, and elite success stories.
But if history is any guide, the only action that will be accelerated is the branding of feminism as a marketable commodity, while the women enduring war, occupation, and systemic violence face erasure.
Year after year, International Women’s Day is paraded as a global moment of solidarity, yet its priorities are carefully curated. The feminist establishment rallies behind causes that are palatable, media-friendly, and politically convenient- where women’s struggles can be framed as individual success stories, not systemic injustices.
When Iranian women burned their hijabs in protest, they were met with widespread Western support. When Ukrainian women took up arms, they were hailed as symbols of resilience. But when Palestinian women dig through rubble to pull their children’s bodies from the ruins of their homes, they are met with silence or, worse, suspicion. The same feminist institutions that mobilise against “violence against women” struggle to even utter the words “Gaza” or “genocide”.
In the UK, in the run-up to this year’s International Women’s Day, an MP and feminist organisations have hosted an event on “Giving a Voice to Silenced Women in Afghanistan”, featuring feminists who had spent months calling for boycotts of the Afghan cricket team. Because, of course, that’s how you take on the Taliban – by making sure they can’t play a game of cricket.
This is what passes for international solidarity: Symbolic gestures that do nothing for the women suffering under oppressive regimes but make Western politicians feel morally superior.
Let me be clear: Afghan women deserve every ounce of solidarity and support. Their struggle against an oppressive regime is real, urgent, and devastating – and yes, what they are enduring is gender apartheid.
But acknowledging their suffering does not excuse the rank hypocrisy of those who wield feminism as a political tool, showing up for Afghan women while staying silent on the Palestinian women being starved, bombed, and brutalised before our eyes.
The Taliban’s rise was not some act of nature – it was a direct product of UK and US intervention. After 20 years of occupation, after handing Afghan women back to the very men the West once armed and enabled, these same voices now weep over their fate.
Where were these women MPs, prominent feminists, and mainstream feminist organisations when pregnant Palestinian women were giving birth in the streets of Gaza because hospitals had been bombed? Where was the outcry when Israeli snipers targeted women journalists, like Shireen Abu Akleh? Where were the boycotts when Palestinian girls were pulled from the rubble of their homes, killed by US-made bombs?
Time and time again, we see the same pattern: Feminist outrage is conditional, activism is selective, and solidarity is reserved for those whose struggles do not challenge Western power. Afghan women deserve support. But so do Palestinian women, Sudanese women, Yemeni women. Instead, their suffering is met with silence, suspicion, or outright erasure.
International Women’s Day, once a radical call for equality, has become a hollow spectacle – one where feminist organisations and politicians pick and choose which women deserve justice and which women can be sacrificed at the altar of Western interests.
Feminism has long been wielded by the powerful as a tool to justify empire, war, and occupation – all under the pretence of “saving women”. During the Algerian War of Independence, the French launched a campaign to “liberate” Algerian women from the veil, parading unveiled women in propaganda ceremonies while simultaneously brutalising and raping them in detention centres.
The French, of course, were never concerned about gender equality in Algeria; they readily restricted education and employment for Algerian women. Their actions under the guise of helping women were about domination.
This same narrative of the helpless brown woman in need of white saviours has been used to justify even more recent Western military interventions, from Afghanistan to Iraq. Today, we see the same playbook in Palestine, as well.
The West frames Palestinian women as victims – but not of bombs, displacement, or starvation. No, the real problem, we are told, is Palestinian men. Israeli officials and their Western allies rehash the same Orientalist trope: Palestinian women must be saved from their own culture, from their own people, while their actual suffering under occupation is ignored or dismissed.
The systematic slaughter of women and children is treated as an unfortunate footnote to the conflict, rather than its central atrocity. We see the same pattern again and again – concern for women’s rights only when it serves a political agenda, silence when those rights are crushed under the weight of Western-backed airstrikes and military occupation. This is not solidarity. It is complicity wrapped in feminist rhetoric.
So, who will actually benefit from International Women’s Day this year? Will it be the women whose oppression fits neatly into Western feminist narratives, allowing politicians, feminist organisations, and mainstream women’s advocacy groups to bask in their self-congratulatory glow? Or will it be the women who have been silenced, erased, and dehumanised – those for whom “accelerate action” has meant 17 months of genocide and 76 years of settler colonial violence?
Is this just another “feel-good” exercise, where you can claim to support women across the world without confronting the fact that your feminism has limits? Because if this is truly about accelerating action, then after 17 months of bombing, starvation, and displacement, we should finally hear you stand for Palestinian women.
But we know how this goes. The speeches will be made, the hashtags will trend, the panel discussions will be held – but the women of Gaza will remain buried under the rubble, their suffering too politically inconvenient to mention.
As for me, I am joining the feminist movement’s march today – but let’s be clear, our agendas are not the same. I will march for every Palestinian woman who not only struggles to be heard but has been so brutally dehumanised that her suffering amid a genocide is being broadcast live to blind eyes and deaf ears.
I – along with countless other women who refuse to stay silent – will think of each mother cradling the lifeless body of her child, each daughter forced to become a caretaker overnight, each sister searching through the rubble with her bare hands. And we – women who believe in real feminist solidarity and reject selective outrage – will not just “hope” that this call to action means something; we will make sure it does.
We will make sure Palestinian voices are heard. We will make sure to boycott those who profit from Palestinian oppression. We will make sure to challenge every platform and every feminist who normalises Palestinian suffering, holding them accountable for their complicity.
To our Palestinian sisters: We feel your pain. We have carried your struggle in our hearts for the last 17 months, and we know your fight did not begin there – it has been 76 years of defiance, of survival, of refusing to disappear.
And know this: Next year, on March 8, we will not just mourn your suffering – we will celebrate your victory. Not your so-called “liberation” from your own men, as Western feminists like to frame it, but your liberation from settler-colonial occupation. We hear you. We see you. And we will not rest until the whole world does, too.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Middle East
Palestinian journalist among two killed in Israeli attack on Gaza hospital | Israel-Palestine conflict News
Hassan Eslaih has been killed in Nasser Hospital during treatment for injuries sustained in the previous Israeli attack.
Israel’s army has admitted to carrying out “a targeted attack” on the Nasser Medical Complex in the city of Khan Younis in southern Gaza, killing two people, including Palestinian journalist Hassan Eslaih.
Gaza’s Government Media Office on Tuesday confirmed the killing of Eslaih, who was receiving treatment at the hospital’s burn unit for severe injuries sustained during an April 7 Israeli strike on a media tent located next to the hospital.
The AFP news agency footage from Nasser Hospital after Tuesday’s strike showed smoke rising from the facility as rescuers searched through the rubble by the light of torches.
A hospital worker who gave his name as Abu Ghali said the Israeli bombardment “does not differentiate between civilians and military targets”.
“This is a civilian hospital that receives injured people around the clock,” he told AFP.
Eslaih was the director of the Alam24 News Agency and a freelancer who contributed to international news organisations, including photos of the Hamas-led October 7 attack.
Israel has claimed Eslaih was a Hamas fighter who participated in the October 7 attack, an allegation he vehemently denied.
Dozens of journalists killed
At least 178 journalists and media workers have been killed in Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon since the war began, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Gaza’s Government Media Office put the death toll at 215.
Israel’s military said in a post on Telegram that the strike targeted a Hamas “command and control complex” at the hospital – the largest in southern Gaza – without providing further evidence.
“The compound was used by the terrorists to plan and execute terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and [military] troops,” the post said, in what appeared to be a reference to Eslaih and Hamas.
Gaza’s Health Ministry on Tuesday condemned “the repeated targeting of hospitals and the pursuit and killing of wounded patients inside treatment rooms”, saying it “confirms Israel’s deliberate intent to inflict greater damage to the healthcare system”.
Hospitals in Gaza have been a frequent target of Israeli attacks since the war began in October 2023, although attacking health facilities, medical personnel and patients is illegal under the 1949 Geneva Convention.
According to officials in Gaza, Israel has bombed and burned at least 36 hospitals across the enclave since the war erupted.
Middle East
Campaigners take UK to court over export of F-35 components to Israel | Israel-Palestine conflict News
The United Kingdom’s government faces a High Court challenge over the export of F-35 jet components used by Israel.
Co-claimants Al-Haq, a Palestinian rights organisation, and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) are behind the case.
“We’re going to court to try to force the government to stop supplying F-35 components to Israel,” Jennine Walker, a lawyer with GLAN and the legal firm Bindmans, representing Al-Haq, told Al Jazeera.
The four-day case is set to begin on Tuesday, as Israel’s onslaught in Gaza continues with the aid of F-35 jets, having already killed more than 61,700 people.
Here’s what you need to know:
What’s happening?
In September 2024, the UK suspended about 30 out of 350 arms export licences to Israel following a review that found there was “a clear risk certain military exports to Israel might be used in violations of international humanitarian law”, according to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
But it carved out an exception for F-35 jet components, citing the F-35 global programme’s importance to international security. The parts, however, would not be sent directly to Israel, the government said.
Al-Haq and GLAN argue that the government is breaking domestic and international law through a loophole by allowing the parts to be supplied to Israel via the global spares pool and F-35 partner countries, “despite the [International Court of Justice] finding that there is plausible risk of genocide being committed against Palestinians in Gaza”.
The UK reportedly provides about 15 percent of the components in the F-35 fighter jets used by Israel.
The case has taken on new significance after a report last week by the Palestinian Youth Movement, Progressives International and Workers for a Free Palestine suggested F-35 parts are still being sent directly to Israel as of March 2025.
“Despite the September 2024 suspension of direct shipments of F-35 components from the UK to Israel, the data suggest such shipments are ongoing as of March 2025”, the report said, citing Israeli tax authority data.
From Tuesday until Friday, High Court judges will examine whether the government’s decision to suspend some but not all arms licences for export to Israel was legally correct.
Al Jazeera understands the judicial review will focus on the carve-out for F-35 jet parts. The campaigners have said they aim to ensure the UK government “urgently suspends all arms exports to Israel”, while accusing the UK of “complicity” in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians.
What will the campaigners argue?
Co-claimants Al-Haq and GLAN applied for a judicial review into arms export licences to Israel in December 2023, citing violations carried out by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
They say F-35 jets have plausibly been involved in war crimes.
“We know Israel is using the F-35 jets to bomb civilians. For example [in] the attack on March 18 which broke the ceasefire, and this wouldn’t be possible without the UK’s help,” Walker said.
“Hundreds of civilians died,” Walker said, referring to one of the deadliest days across Gaza when Israeli assaults killed more than 400 people. “We know every F-35 jet has some British parts.”
What’s the UK’s position?
In a statement sent to Al Jazeera, a spokesperson with the UK’s Foreign Office said, “This government has suspended relevant licences for the [Israeli army] that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”
The spokesperson added that of the remaining licences for Israel, the “vast majority” are not for the Israeli army but for “civilian purposes or re-export, and therefore are not used in the war in Gaza”.
The spokesperson reiterated the government’s position that the F-35 programme exemption was “due to its strategic role in NATO and wider implications for international peace and security”, adding that “any suggestion that the UK is licensing other weapons for use by Israel in the war in Gaza is misleading”.
Which other groups are involved in the case?
Oxfam, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are assisting the court by submitting written evidence.
Oxfam’s intervention is based on its documentation of the destruction caused by Israeli fire on water sanitation and health facilities.
Akshaya Kumar, the director of crisis advocacy at Human Rights Watch, raised the idea of criminal responsibility, referencing the Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal.
“If you are a supplier, you are aiding and abetting the continued assault, the continued air strikes. You are part of that criminal responsibility,” she said.
Elizabeth Rghebi, the MENA advocacy director at Amnesty International USA, argued that several states have either been unwilling to observe international legal obligations or have claimed that the structure of the F-35 programme makes it impossible to apply arms controls to the end-user, “which would make the entire programme incompatible with international law”.
What is the scale of damage from Israeli air strikes in Gaza?
Israel’s latest military assault on Gaza began shortly after October 7, 2023, when Hamas, the group that governs the Strip, led an incursion into southern Israel, during which 1,139 people were killed and more than 200 were taken captive.
Israel has failed to achieve its stated aim of crushing Hamas, while its aerial bombardment from jets, including the F-35, has decimated civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, universities, libraries, mosques and churches.
Emeritus professor Paul Rogers from the University of Bradford said, “In terms of tonnage dropped, most modern wars have had very high levels of tonnage used. Gaza is probably one of the worst. If you go back to the Second World War – [there was] the carpet bombing of German cities, the firebombing of Japanese cities, for that matter, and, on a smaller scale, the bombing Britain experienced during the second and third years of the war.”
He added: “So, it’s not exceptional in that sense, but the concentration of so much firepower in a very small area is very unusual. It bears comparison with some of the worst examples of modern warfare and their impact on civilians.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) has documented the woes inflicted on Gaza’s healthcare sector, including the systematic destruction of hospitals, withholding of medical supplies and the detention of doctors.
“Airstrikes and a lack of medical supplies, food, water and fuel have virtually depleted an already under-resourced health system,” the WHO said.
It added that 90 percent of housing units in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged. A similar percentage of school buildings require complete reconstruction or major rehabilitation.
On May 4, Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) launched a barrage of suicide drones at Port Sudan, the army’s de facto wartime capital on the Red Sea.
The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) accused foreign actors of supporting the RSF’s attacks and even threatened to sever ties with one of its biggest trading partners.
The RSF surprised many with the strikes. It had used drones before, but never hit targets as far away as Port Sudan, which used to be a haven, until last week.
“The strikes … led to a huge displacement from the city. Many people left Port Sudan,” Aza Aera, a local relief worker, told Al Jazeera. “If the aggression continues … I think I’ll leave like everyone else.”
A drone war
When a civil war erupted between the SAF and RSF in April 2023, the army had aerial supremacy due to its fleet of warplanes and drones.
Yet the RSF is closing the gap with an arsenal of suicide drones, which it used on Port Sudan for six consecutive days, hitting an army base, a civilian airport, several hotels, and a fuel depot, which caused a massive blast.
“Sudan had already entered the phase of drone warfare over the last … few months at least,” said Suliman Baldo, the founder of the Sudan Transparency and Policy Tracker think tank.
The army largely relies on the relatively affordable Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones, reportedly receiving $120m worth of them since late 2023.
Bayraktars can travel long distances with a large payload, and the army says they helped it regain swaths of territory from the RSF in eastern and central Sudan between September 2024 and March 2025, including the capital Khartoum.
Despite losing significant ground, the RSF then stepped up its aggression against the SAF with Chinese-made drones, according to a recent report by Amnesty International.
The human rights group, Sudan’s de facto military government and other monitors all accuse the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of purchasing these drones – and other weapons – and supplying them to the RSF.
The UAE has denied the accusations as “baseless”.
“The UAE strongly rejects the suggestion that it is supplying weapons to any party involved in the ongoing conflict in Sudan,” said Salem Aljaberi, a spokesperson for the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a statement on X.
Regardless, the increasing use of drones by both sides marks an escalation and risks exacerbating an already catastrophic situation for civilians, according to experts and human rights monitors.
Bold announcement
On May 6, the army-backed authorities in Port Sudan announced the severing of all ties with the UAE after accusing it of being behind the attacks.
That announcement was not well thought-out, according to Baldo.
Sudan’s army could lose tens of millions of dollars in gold revenue, as well as access to vital banking operations, he told Al Jazeera.
A UAE-backed company, Emiral Resources, owns a majority of shares in Sudan’s largest gold mine, the Kush mine.
Kush is administered by Sudan’s army, which likely sells tens of millions of dollars worth of gold to the UAE.
According to the Central Bank of Sudan, about 97 percent of gold exports from army-controlled areas went to the UAE in 2023.
Kush exported at least one tonne of gold in 2024, although it is unclear how much higher the number is for production.
Furthermore, UAE banks own a majority share in the Bank of Khartoum, whose digital platform, Bankak, facilitates money transfers for millions of displaced Sudanese and public institutions.
The UAE state also owns El Nilein Bank, which manages and approves international transactions on behalf of Port Sudan, according to a report that Baldo co-authored in March for the Chatham House think tank.
“This was a rushed decision [to cut ties with the UAE] that will have serious consequences … due to the UAE’s control over [Sudan’s] national economy,” Baldo told Al Jazeera.
Major escalation?
Sudan’s army has not clarified how and when it will sever ties with the UAE.
On May 6, SAF chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan vowed in a video to “defeat the militia (RSF) and those who help them”.
Al Jazeera sent written questions to army spokesperson Nabil Abdullah, asking if Port Sudan will implement the announced suspension.
No reply was received by time of publication.
For its part, the UAE’s Foreign Ministry told Al Jazeera in an email that it will not retaliate against Port Sudan.
“The statement issued by the so-called ‘Security and Defence Council’ will not affect the deep-rooted and enduring ties between the UAE and the Republic of the Sudan, and their peoples,” the emailed statement said.
Meanwhile, experts and observers believe the war in Sudan is trending towards a major escalation.
The army’s regional backers could respond to the RSF’s increased use of drones by doubling down on their support for the army, warned Alan Boswell, a Sudan expert for the International Crisis Group.
“The obvious risk [from the attacks on Port Sudan] is that it brings other [regional powers] into deeper involvement on the army’s side,” he told Al Jazeera.
“We could see an escalating war with greater and greater firepower, and nothing would be left of Sudan’s infrastructure by the end of it.”
-
Africa1 day agoWTO Chief urges cooperation in Japan trade talks
-
Africa1 day agoCristiano Jr. joins Portugal Under-15 team
-
Middle East1 day agoCampaigners take UK to court over export of F-35 components to Israel | Israel-Palestine conflict News
-
Sports1 day agoCoco Gauff makes history with dominant victory over Emma Raducanu to advance to Italian Open quarterfinals
-
Middle East1 day agoPalestinian journalist among two killed in Israeli attack on Gaza hospital | Israel-Palestine conflict News
-
Africa1 day agoTrump, Saudi crown prince sign a host of agreements
-
Lifestyle1 day agoAllergic gardeners can choose plants that produce less floating pollen
-
Middle East1 day agoDrones, gold, and threats: Sudan’s war raises regional tensions | Sudan war News