The Gaza Grind and Iranian Gambit Will Have a Cost for Israel
Israel, the Middle East's scrappy David, has been slinging stones at giants for decades. But lately, this underdog looks less like a hero and more like a boxer who's taken one too many jabs. The Gaza quagmire and a bruising brawl with Iran have left Israel wobbling. In a neighbourhood where grudges come with rocket launchers, looking mortal is as clever as yelling 'Aa bail mujhe maar' in a bullock race.advertisementGaza's been grinding on like a violently tragic scene stuck on loop. It's been two years since Hamas's October 7 sneak attack, and Israel's scorched earth with extra scorch strategy hasn't exactly won hearts. Hamas's Gaza Health Ministry claims over 56,000 have died. It doesn't matter exactly how many have perished, the world has stopped counting and started judging. Images of rubble, daily body counts, and a humanitarian crisis have turned Israel's iron fist into a global public relations disaster. The macabre scars of October 7 don't justify the carnage anymore. With 50-plus hostages still in Hamas's grip, Israel's war aim too remains elusive. It seems death and destruction have all been in vain.For 20 months, Israel's been juggling Iran's proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and the now-defunct Assad regime, like a circus act. Then, in June 2025, Israel went for the jugular, bombing Iran's alleged nuclear sites. Tehran hit back, lobbing missiles that pierced Israel's vaunted air defences. Trump's America, dragged into the mess, dropped 'bunker busters' on Iran's nuclear installations, delaying their programme only by a few months, not years. The enriched uranium and know-how are still there. Iran's leaders, vowing deterrence, might just hit fast-forward. Trump's truce felt like a reality TV cliffhanger: lots of drama, zero closure.From History's Champ to Today's Chump?advertisement
Israel's wars in 1948, 1967, 1973, all ended with it flexing on the podium. Not this time. The war in Gaza has not delivered a knockout to Hamas, whose fighters are still planting bombs. Hezbollah is nursing wounds post-November 2024 but plotting a comeback, and the Houthis are playing pirates of the Arabian Sea, in the Red Sea to be precise. Iran, the proxy puppeteer, will likely upgrade their arsenal with shinier rockets. Israel's invincible aura has cracked like a kulhad thrown on railway tracks.Over in the West, Israel's fan club is shrinking. UK and European parliaments, now more diverse, are echoing public disgust with calls for ceasefires and arms embargoes. 'Genocide' accusations are sticking on Israel's Teflon robe. In a decade, Israel's blank cheque from the West might bounce. The old 'hit hard, apologise later' playbook is as outdated as a pager. Continued dependence on this might explode in its face or rather groin. Ask Hezbollah!Israel, once David to a gaggle of Goliaths, needs a new script. Enemies are emboldened, allies are wavering, and the Gaza grind is bleeding goodwill. Time for a rethink on Gaza. Because all the perfumes of Arabia can't sweeten this iron fist. As for me, I'm just a satirist with a keyboard and a deadline, watching Israel play chess with a sledgehammer. Checkmate's looking tricky, mate.(Kamlesh Singh, a columnist and satirist, is director of news with India Today Digital)- Ends(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Tune InMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
29 minutes ago
- India.com
No Wars. No Noise. Just Calm: In A World On Fire, These 10 Countries Preferred Peace Over Conflict
New Delhi: War fills headlines. Protests shake capitals. Sirens echo through cities. But not everywhere. In quiet corners of the world, some nations walk a different path. Their streets are calm. Their politics steady. Their people, safe. The Global Peace Index for 2025 does more than rank countries. It holds up a mirror. It shows where peace works. Where governments deliver without drama. Where citizens live without fear. At the top of that list sits Iceland. No army. No enemies. No blood on the streets. Just trust, clean air and quiet resolve. It has been the world's most peaceful country since 2008. That streak did not happen by chance. It came from values, choices and a national will to stay out of trouble. Ireland comes next. Once torn by conflict, it is now a place of poets, coders and peace. Its shift from turmoil to trust was slow, painful but real. The scars of the past now teach lessons. The economy hums. The streets feel safe. Neutrality helps. So does remembering what chaos once cost. Then there is New Zealand. Tucked far away. Green hills. Blue oceans. Firm laws. Kind hearts. People trust the system. The system listens back. Even in tragedy, they heal together. That calm shows in their global standing. Austria and Switzerland share fourth. Landlocked. Rich. Neutral. Organised. Their borders have not moved in ages. Neither has their commitment to staying out of fights. Their strength lies in staying still. Singapore holds strong in Asia. Rules are strict. Streets are spotless. Its peace does not shout. It works in silence. Strong policies. Smart trade. No distractions. That is how the city-state survives in a region full of tension. Portugal follows. Once a coloniser. Now a quiet European success. Calm politics. Welcoming people. Even drug laws rewritten with empathy. The change is deep. And lasting. Then comes Denmark. Where taxes are high and tempers low. Where people trust each other. Where 'hygge' means more than comfort. It means choosing joy over drama. That feeling flows into policy. Slovenia steps in next. A young country. Born from war. Now a bridge between East and West. Small in size. Large in peace. A calm, post-conflict miracle that proves healing works. Finland rounds out the ten. Cold air. Warm society. Steady hands at the wheel. A long border with Russia. But no panic. Just preparation, education and determination. Sisu, they call it. A kind of quiet fire that does not flicker. Each country on this list made different choices. Different paths. But one thing in common – none chased chaos. They invested in schools. In safety. In people. Their streets do not tremble when leaders speak. Their laws protect more than just borders. And their peace, while silent, speaks volumes. These are the nations where calm is not weakness. It is strength in disguise.
Mint
37 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump has struck trade deals with 2 countries ahead of July 9; what about the others? What is India's position?
As the July 9 deadline set by the Donald Trump administration approaches soon, officials have struggled to strike trade deals with a lot of countries. In almost three months, the US has been able to sign trade agreements with just two countries, with Trump and his officials hinting that a long pipeline is in place. Countries failing to strike deals with the US within the July 9 deadline will face tariffs as was announced by Trump in April. The President however on Friday indicated that the deadline could be moved forward. 'We can do whatever we want. We could extend it. We could make it shorter. I'd like to make it shorter. I'd like to just send letters out to everybody: Congratulations, you're paying 25 per cent,' he told reporters at the White House. Here's what you need to know about Donald Trump's trade deals. As of now, only two countries — China and UK — have signed trade deals with the US. 'The [Trump] administration and China agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement,' a White House official said on Thursday. That followed the talks in Geneva in May, where the US and China had agreed to reduce mutual tariffs. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg TV on Thursday that 'they [China] are going to deliver rare earths to us', and once Beijing does that 'we'll take down our countermeasures'. Trump signed an agreement on June 16, formally lowering some tariffs on imports from Britain as the countries continue working toward a formal trade deal. The deal, announced by Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Canada, reaffirmed quotas and tariff rates on British automobiles and eliminated tariffs on the U.K. aerospace sector, but the issue of steel and aluminum remains unresolved. While UK and China are the only countries that have signed trade deals with the US, Trump on Friday called off discussions with China, calling it a 'difficult country'. Trump abruptly ended the negotiations over its tax targeting US technology firms, saying that it was a "blatant attack" and that he would set a new tariff rate on Canadian goods within the next week. Majority of the trade partners of US, including South Korea, Vietnam and EU countries, are struggling to sign deals with America. Countries like France have rejected the notion of striking a deal that favours the US, and have proposed removal of tariffs altogether. Some EU member states have also rejected the idea of a tit-for-tat tarif, and are preferring a quick deal to a perfect one. India and Japan are considered to be the next countries that could strike trade deals with the US. 'But some of the bigger countries, India, I think we're going to reach a deal where we have the right to go in and trade. Right now, it's restricted. You can't walk in there. You can't even think about it,' Trump told reporters on Friday.
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
* Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling Supreme Court ruling causes confusion over birthright citizenship * Lawyers and advocates field calls from anxious clients * Uncertainty remains on policy across different states By Ted Hesson and Kristina Cooke WASHINGTON, - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
