Middle East
What poisoned Fallujah can tell us about toxic risks in Gaza and Lebanon | Human Rights
Over the past few months, thousands of people returned to their homes in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, where they faced threats from unexploded ordinances and lack of access to water, food, and safe shelter. Many were forced to handle war debris, which may pose long-term health risks.
Our new research from Fallujah, Iraq published today by the Costs of War project at Brown University reveals just how dangerous this debris can be. Two decades after the US-led invasion and almost a decade after the occupation of the city by ISIS, the enduring health effects of war are still evident.
Our team’s X-ray fluorescence bone sampling detected uranium in the bones of 29 percent of study participants in Fallujah, while lead was detected in 100 percent of them. The levels of lead were 600 percent higher than averages from similarly aged populations in the US. Healthy adults should have no uranium present in the bone, so any presence is significant.
Heavy metals such as lead and uranium can cause serious adverse effects in neurodevelopment, general neurological health, cardiovascular health, and birth outcomes.
When ISIS occupied Fallujah in 2014, one of our study participants Reina (not her real name) and her young family managed to flee north to the relative safety of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. While they were away, ISIS fighters used their house to store weapons. Iraqi and US warplanes then bombarded the entire neighbourhood, damaging the family’s house.
After they returned to their home two years later, and during the first trimester of her pregnancy, Reina cleared up the rubble almost single-handedly – all the time breathing in a toxic admixture of concrete dust, munition remnants, and the burned fragments of her home’s interior.
Her son was born in 2017 with a congenital anomaly. Reina and her family – among thousands of returning residents of Fallujah – faced the deferred health risks triggered by post-war clean-up activities. Though she has fully restored her home, Reina remains concerned: “I can’t tell if the house is still making us sick,” she told us.
Her concerns are well-founded. More heavily bombarded areas in Fallujah still have higher levels of heavy metals in the soil than other areas. But the bombardment has not been the only source of toxicity threatening Iraqis.
As the US army drew down its presence in Iraq, it burned huge amounts of military equipment and weapons in so-called burn pits, which produced toxic fumes that spread to nearby population centres. It was well-documented that these burn pits caused serious health issues among US veterans who faced only short-term exposure.
Reina’s story, and thousands of others like hers, contain lessons that are important for returnees in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
One key observation of our recent study, spearheaded by doctors Samira Alaani and Abdulqader Alrawi in Fallujah and led by Kali Rubaii at Purdue University, is that those who were first to return and rebuild in war-damaged areas may be at a higher risk of reproductive health harms.
The children of men and women who were immersed in postwar cleanup activities may have a higher rate of certain congenital anomalies and poorer birth outcomes than the children of those who returned later or who did not directly participate in rebuilding. This is likely because their parents were exposed through inhalation to toxins from detonated munitions, incinerated materials, dioxins, and other forms of dust at a much higher rate than those who returned after buildings were restored.
Fallujah’s increase in birth anomalies has been attributed to exposure to the weapons of war, as are manifold other similar spikes in, for example, early onset cancers and respiratory diseases.
A second observation is that in the process of being displaced, returning, and re-establishing households, families face nutritional gaps that can compound health risks, even for the next generation. Post-war clean-up often brings malnourished bodies into contact with myriad harmful materials; a decreased intake of key nutrients can undermine the body’s ability to cope with toxins and intensify reproductive health risks.
For example, during the first trimester of pregnancy, insufficient folate intake can lead to neural tube defects in the foetus. War debris contains heavy metals that can also disrupt folate pathways in pregnant women.
These patterns we observed in Fallujah’s public health will likely occur in other heavily bombarded cities, where returnees will bear the double burden of military violence: Not only have they suffered death, dismemberment, displacement, and dispossession, but they are also likely to experience intergenerational health effects yet to come.
Certainly, the most effective way to limit heavy metal toxicity from war is by not bombing cities in the first place. But when that happens, there are steps that can be taken to limit the compounded health effects of toxic exposure.
First, populations in war zones should not be deprived of adequate nutrition and safe drinking water.
Second, international NGOs, health institutions, local clinics, and regional radio outlets should disseminate information about direct measures displaced people can take to protect their own health when they return to their homes.
For example, it is critical that returnees wear a mask or scarf to limit inhaling fine particles during cleaning and reconstruction activities. Burying rather than burning trash can also reduce widespread exposure to toxins. And when pregnant or seeking to conceive, women should avoid participating in dust-producing cleanup and rebuilding activities.
Additionally, vitamins C and D in food or supplements can limit both the uptake and release of heavy metals accumulated in one’s bones. Women in the first trimester of pregnancy – or seeking to conceive – should have priority in their consumption of folate-rich foods – like spinach, broccoli, fortified rice, and enriched wheat – or folic acid supplements (aka vitamin B9) when they can be found.
These are some of the ways – albeit limited – to mitigate the ongoing harm of post-war exposures to better protect future generations.
Meanwhile, our collective and active effort to prevent military bombardment remains the most effective way to protect communities from war-induced exposures to short-term and long-term health harms.
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.”
