التصنيف: estaql

On October 27, the United Nations General Assembly passed a nonbinding resolution with overwhelming support calling for an immediate humanitarian truce between Israel and Hamas and demanding aid access to Gaza.

One hundred twenty countries voted in favour of the resolution, clearly expressing their opposition to the continuation of Israel’s siege and bombardment of Gaza, which has claimed thousands of civilian lives.

The Philippines was not one of those countries. Along with 45 others, it abstained from voting on the resolution. Instead, it acknowledged Israel’s “right to self-defence” while remaining mum on the human rights abuses and war crimes faced by Palestinians in Gaza.

Although disappointing, this was not exactly surprising. The government of the Philippines has been supporting Israel unconditionally for many decades, turning a blind eye to its many violations of international law and grave crimes against Palestinians living under its occupation.

The ties between the Philippines and Israel are as old as Israel itself. The Philippines was one of the 33 countries that voted in favour of UN Resolution 181 in 1947 to partition Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, with Jerusalem placed under a special international regime. This plan, as we all know, never materialised. But the Philippines continued to support the Israeli state and its unlawful expansion into Palestinian territories.

Israel and the Philippines established full diplomatic relationships in 1957 and signed a treaty of friendship in 1958. Manila’s support for Israel has remained robust since then. It not only never pressured Israel to cede occupied Palestinian territories but also always actively sought to protect it from international criticism. In 2017, for example, openly contradicting its 1947 position, the Philippines abstained from voting on a resolution criticising then-United States President Donald Trump’s attempt to unilaterally cement Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

A year later, Rodrigo Duterte became the first Filipino president in history to visit Israel. Duterte had promised early in his tenure to carve out an independent foreign policy that wouldn’t automatically toe the US policy line. Yet under his administration, as exemplified in his 2018 visit to the country, the Philippines continued its unconditional diplomatic and political support for Israel on all fronts.

Today, under the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr, the Philippines is firmly back in the US sphere of influence, and the country’s support for Israel remains as strong as ever.

Since the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, in which about 1,200 people were killed and more than 200 taken captive, the Philippines repeatedly demonstrated solidarity with Israel and condemned the harm inflicted on Israeli civilians. But it did not stop there.

In line with its long-held pro-Israel position, the Philippines went beyond advocating for the human rights of Israelis and offered blind support for the Israeli government and its vengeful and objectively disproportionate attacks on Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

By showing unconditional and unquestioning support for the Israeli government and its war on Gaza, the Philippines has placed itself firmly on the wrong side of history and ended up working against its own interests.

Israel’s siege and bombardment of Gaza already has had an immense human cost, claiming more than 11,000 lives, many of them children, in just several weeks. Like all countries, the Philippines has a moral obligation not to take part in, support or in anyway condone state policies and actions that lead to thousands of deaths, widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and mass displacement. It also has an obligation to hold all states, including its allies, to account when they blatantly violate international law. A foreign policy that does not actively demand an end to all violence in Gaza undermines these obligations and leaves the Philippines open to accusations that it is complicit in Israel’s human rights violations and alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Showing blind support for Israel is also contrary to the Philippine government’s own long-term interests.

The Philippines has first-hand knowledge of the perils of having a militarily and economically powerful neighbour that routinely disregards international law and tries to expand into the territories of surrounding smaller states. The Philippines has long been involved in territorial disputes with China and has had confrontations with Chinese ships over such issues as recently as this week.

Supporting violators of international laws and norms weakens the Philippines’ moral stance on the international stage and its calls for condemnation of China’s territorial aggression in the South China/West Philippines Sea. The Philippines cannot expect the international community to help it confront violations of international law by a neighbouring state while it is actively lending its support to similar violations by another nation.

Therefore, for reasons ranging from moral obligation to self-interest, the Philippines should revise its policies on Israel, end its unwavering support towards the Israeli government and, most importantly, adopt a foreign policy that recognises and respects the human rights of all peoples, including the Palestinians. The Philippines must acknowledge that it is wrong to kill civilians, whether they are Israelis or Palestinians, no ifs, ands or buts.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Taking a breath becomes increasingly difficult, foam starts pouring out of your mouth, your vision becomes blurred and your heartbeat slows right down. Then the convulsions take over.

“Then we surrendered to death,” said Dr Salim Namour, describing the symptoms of sarin gas inhalation. He experienced them twice while treating the wounded in Ghouta, Syria, in August 2013, when the regime of President Bashar al-Assad launched a horrific chemical weapons attack on Douma and eastern Ghouta.

“We were destined to live, but not everyone survived.”

Today, Namour heads the Association of Victims of Chemical Weapons (AVCW), one of the organisations that brought a lawsuit which has led to the issue of a French arrest warrant against the al-Assad and three senior officers for the chemical massacre which killed more than 1,100 people.

“The worst effects of exposure to chemical weapons are the deep psychological trauma, the memories of suffocation and the memories of those we lost and loved,” Namour told Al Jazeera. Remembering the terror that befell the hundreds of thousands who were besieged in Ghouta, he said: “They died while they were hungry and dreaming of a loaf of bread, and the children died dreaming of a toy.”

‘Bitterness and disappointment’

Ten years ago, the chemical weapons massacre sparked global outrage, and attention turned to Barack Obama, the then-United States president, who had said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a “red line”.

Despite a mountain of evidence against the regime over the use of chemical warfare on civilian populations, Obama’s “red line” culminated in nothing more than the decision to destroy the chemical weapons arsenal in Syria.

Syria agreed in 2013 to join the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) global watchdog and give up all chemical weapons.

This left “a feeling of bitterness and disappointment” for the survivors, according to Namour, as they believed it allowed al-Assad to escape accountability and punishment.

In September 2013, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution No 2118, which stipulated the need to hold accountable those responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

The OPCW announced the completion of its destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons one year after the massacre.

Nevertheless, investigations have proved the use of chemical weapons (such as sarin and chlorine) by regime forces in opposition-controlled areas over the following years.

So, AVCW, along with the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), the Syrian Archive, the Open Society Justice Initiative and the Civil Rights Defenders turned to the international jurisdiction of France’s courts in a bid to hold those responsible accountable.

No immunity for war criminals

The decision to issue an arrest warrant for al-Assad comes two years after the lawsuit was filed and evidence and witnesses were presented to the court in France.

The case against al-Assad and the high-ranking military officials was bolstered by firsthand witness accounts and deep analysis of the Syrian military chain of command, said lawyer Mazen Darwish, founder and director of SCM.

Darwish described the arrest warrant as an “historic precedent” as it aims to hold accountable a serving president, who was previously considered to enjoy absolute immunity.

Darwish said the evidence “proves that it is not possible for a military unit to use [chemical weapons] against civilians without an order from the president of the Republic, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces”.

Darwish said he is not hopeful that the French trial will bring full justice for the victims, which he believes should take the form of a political transition and a path towards transitional justice. Such a process must be based on the principles of preventing recurrence and revenge, and holding those responsible accountable, he said.

The main goal of filing lawsuits in European courts, Darwish said, is to keep the principle of justice on the table, to enable the voices of victims to be heard and to provide proof that these crimes are real and not just “political allegations” between conflicting parties, as the Syrian regime and its supporters claim.

Halting normalisation with the Syrian regime is also one of the goals of this trial, which serves to remind those who welcome Bashar al-Assad that he is a proven war criminal.

“As a Syrian refugee, I hope to return to my country and be able to live there with my children,” Darwish said. “For any national cause, only the people are the ones who are able to make a difference.”

Remembering ‘town of the dead’

Mohamed Eid, 30, remembers the night when his town, Zamalka, became a “town of the dead” as the deadly gas spread through all its neighbourhoods, causing the deaths of entire families within minutes.

As a media activist, Eid picked up his camera to try to document what he was seeing. “I cannot forget the loved ones and relatives we lost,” he told Al Jazeera. “I saw mothers hugging their children as they died, and a father who could not breathe but was calling the rescuers to help his son instead of him.”

Eid said he would consider any formal trial of al-Assad a “victory”, although he would prefer it to take place in Syrian courts. “But the time is not suitable because the regime is still in power and continues to commit crimes to this day, as we see in Idlib,” he said, referring to the continuous bombing by regime forces of areas outside its control in the northwest of the country.

Amin al-Sheikh, 48, received the news of the arrest warrant with a mixture of “caution and indifference” because he believes that France has interests “other than justice for the victims”. He is angry that France allowed Rifaat al-Assad, the uncle of the Syrian President, to leave France and return to Syria in 2021, despite having been sentenced to prison for using funds diverted from Syria to buy French property.

“They are lying to us and will not do us justice. I would be ashamed of myself if I believed them or trusted them, and I will not change my convictions until I see concrete steps that begin to delegitimise this regime,” al-Sheikh said.

‘Don’t suffocate truth’

The horror of the chemical attacks has never left Mahmoud Buwaydani, even years after he became a refugee in Turkey.

The college student was 16 years old when the massacre occurred. “We were accustomed to bombing, but this was different because of the number of victims and the type of weapons that were not often used at the time,” he said.

Buwaydani learned of the arrest warrant against al-Assad with mixed feelings, he said. “I felt hope that we would be able to prosecute the criminals and pain over the memories which came back to me.”

After being forcibly displaced to the north of Syria in 2018, Buwaydani began work to combat government propaganda and misinformation about the crimes he had witnessed, especially the chemical massacre.

He volunteered with the “Don’t Suffocate the Truth” campaign, which works to raise awareness of what happened in Ghouta and to tell the stories of victims and witnesses through its platforms. Buwaydani hasn’t lost hope, he said. “We hope that we will have true accountability for those responsible.”

Other Syrian human rights organisations have also worked to file lawsuits in European courts and to support international efforts to hold the regime and those responsible for war crimes accountable.

Radi Saad, a volunteer with the Syrian Civil Defence (White Helmets), said any judicial decision aimed at holding perpetrators of violations inside Syria accountable will go a long way down the path of justice and accountability.

At the same time, the Civil Defence is working with the investigation teams of the OPCW to confirm 146 incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria, after confirming 17 locations and proving the Syrian regime’s responsibility for nine of those attacks.

The Asian country hopes to end the age-old practice of dog meat consumption by 2027.

South Korea aims to ban eating dog meat and put an end to controversy over the ancient custom amid growing awareness of animal protections.

The government and the ruling People Power Party on Friday agreed to introduce before the end of the year an act to end dog meat consumption by 2027, officials said.

The age-old Korean practice of eating dog has long drawn criticism from overseas. But there has also been increasing opposition at home, particularly from the younger generation.

“It is time to put an end to social conflicts and controversies around dog meat consumption through the enactment of a special act to end it,” Yu Eui-dong, policy chief of the People Power Party, said at a meeting with government officials and animal protection activists.

The legislation would ban the breeding of dogs for slaughter as well as dog meat sales, local media reported. A three-year grace period would be matched by financial support for businesses to transition out of the trade.

Yu said the the bill is expected to win bipartisan support, which should allow it to sail through parliament.

Agriculture Minister Chung Hwang-keun told the meeting the government would implement a ban quickly and provide the maximum possible support for those in the dog meat industry to close their businesses.

First lady Kim Keon-hee has been a vocal critic of dog meat consumption, and along with her husband, President Yoon Suk-yeol, has adopted stray dogs.

Anti-dog meat bills have failed in the past because of protests by those involved in the industry and concern about the livelihoods of farmers and restaurant owners.

Eating dog meat is much less common than it used to be, but it is still favoured by some older people. The meat continues to be served in some restaurants.

Animal protection groups welcomed the prospect of a ban. “A dream come true for all of us who have campaigned so hard to end this cruelty,” Humane Society International said in a statement.

But representatives of a national dog meat farmers association expressed outrage, calling the move “threatening” to their right to live.

South Korea has about 1,150 dog-breeding farms, 34 slaughter houses and 219 dog meat distributors in the country, according to government data. About 1,600 restaurants serve dog meat.

A Gallup Korea poll last year showed 64 percent of South Koreans opposed dog meat consumption. The survey found 8 percent of respondents had eaten dog within the past year, down from 27 percent in 2015.

Israel has stormed Gaza’s largest hospital and bombed residential areas and refugee camps in attacks the United Nations human rights chief Volker Turk says have unleashed a “nightmarish” situation in the besieged Palestinian enclave.

There are growing calls for a ceasefire as the humanitarian situation worsens with risks of starvation facing thousands due to the Israeli blockade of the territory – home to 2.3 million people.

Israel and its allies, meanwhile, have insisted the bombings are justified because it has the right to self-defence in response to the October 7 Hamas attacks that killed 1,200 people and injured more than 5,600 in southern Israel.

But what is this right to self-defence, and does it justify Israel’s killing of more than 11,500 Palestinians and wounding of 29,800 since then?

What is the right to self-defence?

According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, until the UN Security Council takes measures to maintain international peace and security, “nothing in the charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”

Ever since Israel embarked on the bombardment of the Gaza Strip, its officials and its Western allies – from the United States and United Kingdom to the European Union – have defended Israeli actions by pointing to Article 51.

Does it apply to Israel against Gaza?

Many experts aren’t convinced that it does apply.

“The right to self-defence can be invoked when the state is threatened by another state, which is not the case,” Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, said in an address to the Australian Press Club on Tuesday.

The attack Israel faced on October 7 came from an armed group in a territory, Gaza, that Israel has effectively controlled.

Israel withdrew its forces from Gaza in 2005, but it has imposed a land, sea and air blockade on the enclave since Hamas came to power in 2007.

That, according to Albanese, amounts to occupation – although Israel and its allies disagree with that assessment.

“Israel does not claim it has been threatened by another state. It has been threatened by an armed group within an occupied territory. It cannot claim the right of self-defence against a threat that emanates from a territory it occupies, from a territory kept under belligerent occupation,” Albanese said.

Albanese was referring to a 2004 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which said the construction of Israel’s separation wall in the occupied West Bank was illegal. The ICJ rejected the Israeli argument to build the wall, saying it could not invoke the right to self-defence in an occupied territory.

Are there other challenges to Israel’s argument?

Other experts point to the devastating scale of Israeli attacks on Gaza.

“The death of a reported 4,710 children, attacks on healthcare, the withholding of water and electricity – these cannot be merely justified as a ‘right to self-defence’,” said Iain Overton, executive director of the London-based Action on Armed Violence, which conducts research and advocacy on armed violence against civilians.

He added that for Israel to claim this right without being challenged “would be a mockery of the international humanitarian law”.

What rules govern Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip?

Armed conflicts are governed by international humanitarian law (IHL), a set of rules contained in international agreements like the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 as well as other agreements and conventions meant to ensure that all member nations subscribe to a list of fundamental rules during conflicts.

But member states do not always act by the rules, most recently during the Ukraine-Russia war. Israel has been accused of war crimes in its previous military assaults on Gaza, but it has not been held accountable.

In the current conflict, though, experts said Israel’s actions seem to violate all of the four main principles of IHL: distinction between civilians and combatants, proportionality between anticipated loss of civilian life and damage and the strategic military advantage of an attack, legitimate military purposes and the humane treatment of all individuals from civilians to detainees and hostages.

Among the dead Palestinians in the current conflict as of Thursday are 4,710 children and 3,160 women.

“The scale of the bombardment and its impact on civilians raises questions about Israel’s adherence to proportionality,” Overton told Al Jazeera.

Israel’s bombing of Gaza has also killed 102 aid workers with the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), making this the deadliest conflict ever for UN staff in the organisation’s history.

Is it justifiable to attack civilians during a conflict?

IHL underlines the fundamental rule of all wars – that parties in a conflict must always make a distinction between civilians and combatants and that civilians and civilian objects must never be attacked.

Hence, there is no justification for civilians being attacked by either side in the current conflict, and it is unlawful.

Neve Gordon, a professor of international law and human rights at Queen Mary University of London, said both Hamas’s and Israel’s actions were “clearly war crimes”, adding that it was “obvious to anyone” that Hamas’s actions on October 7 violated IHL.

“It is also obvious that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza since October 7,” he said.

“There is the collective punishment through the stopping of water and electricity, the compelled movement of populations and then the unleashing of eruptive violence that is killing thousands of civilians while destroying the very infrastructure of existence in the Gaza Strip,” Gordon added.

Israel controls what goes in and out of Gaza. Even the fuel for its sole power plant, which has since shut down, has been supplied with Israel’s permission.

Israel’s claims that Hamas is operating out of civilian facilities, however, are aimed at justifying civilian casualties, Gordon said.

“When Israel claims Hamas targets in refugee camps and hospitals, the idea in both cases is to underscore that the value of the target is extremely high and, therefore, that Israel is abiding by the principle of proportionality even if many civilians die,” Gordon said.

What about Israeli attacks on hospitals, schools and refugee camps? Are such tactics lawful?

International humanitarian law insists that medical units must be protected. Similarly, international law also disallows attacks against places that are indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as drinking water installations and farmland.

Attacking schools and hospitals during the conflict, as Israel has done, is “one of the six grave violations”, according to the UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.

Yet Israel has been unrelenting in these attacks despite facing heavy criticism. Experts have pointed to how it has relied on the claim, backed by the US and EU, that Hamas is using civilians in these places as “human shields”.

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday reiterated the Israeli claim of a Hamas base at al-Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s largest medical facility. He offered no proof, and Israel has so far not shown any evidence for that claim either.

But what if Hamas is using civilians as ‘human shields’?

One way Hamas uses civilians as “human shields”, Israel insists, is by allegedly operating out of schools, hospitals, refugee camps and shelters.

But many experts believe that painting civilians as human shields is a convenient argument that Israel has used to create legitimacy for its attacks.

“When a person in a battlefield is defined as a human shield, …he or she loses some of the protections assigned to civilians by the laws of war,” Gordon said.

“What many legal commentators say is that once a warring party uses human shields, lethal forms of violence that might otherwise be prohibited in a civilian setting can be used,” he added.

Others, like Overton, said that even if Israel’s claims about Palestinian civilians being used as human shields are accurate, Israeli actions are still not justified.

“The claim that civilians are being used as human shields does not absolve a party from its obligations under IHL. Even if combatants are present, attacks must still adhere to the principles of distinction and proportionality,” Overton said, pointing to how UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called Gaza a “graveyard for children” on November 7.

“This underscores the severe impact on civilians, suggesting that the claim of human shields may not justify the scale and nature of the attacks on civilian areas,” he added.

What are some other laws that Israel has potentially violated?

Israel has also been accused of using white phosphorus, which could trigger fires as well as lead to severe, potentially fatal burns. Firing white phosphorus is akin to an indiscriminate attack, according to Amnesty International, which affects civilians and military targets alike and hence is prohibited under international law.

IHL makes it clear that parties to a conflict “may not order the displacement of the civilian population, in whole or part” except if military reasons demand or if their security is involved.

On October 13, Israel ordered more than 1 million Palestinians in northern Gaza to evacuate and move to the besieged enclave’s south despite the UN warning that Gaza faced a “real catastrophe” due to such an order. Israel has justified this order by saying it was aimed at limiting civilian casualties during its military operation in northern Gaza.

IHL also lays out that all parties in a conflict must ensure that humanitarian relief operations are allowed and facilitated “unimpeded”. However, Israel had refused to allow essential aid into Gaza despite widespread warnings of a humanitarian crisis.

Israel’s decision to impose a “complete siege” of Gaza’s power, food and water supplies has also been widely criticised for triggering a humanitarian crisis as thousands of Palestinians face “death by starvation”, according to the ActionAid charity. Humanitarian law prohibits the use of starvation of the civilian population “as a method of warfare”.

“The complete siege now lasting over one month has made it an agony for residents in Gaza to find basic necessities and frankly to survive,” Turk said last week, adding that “all forms of collective punishment must come to an end”.

Are Israel and Hamas likely to be held to account for any legal violations?

While lawyers and experts have pointed to likely violations by Israel and Hamas of international law and international humanitarian law in particular, that might not ensure legal action against them.

Experts point to the lack of action against Israel for its 2008 assault on Gaza, named Operation Cast Lead, during which Israel was accused of war crimes. The 22-day Israeli offensive killed 1,400 Palestinians. At least 13 Israelis were killed in retaliatory rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups.

“Historical precedents, such as the inquiries following Operation Cast Lead and others, show that while investigations into Israeli actions in Gaza have occurred, they often have not led to significant preventative measures or accountability,” Overton said.

In the current conflict, the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory had announced on October 10 that there was “clear evidence of war crimes” from both sides and added that it had been “collecting and preserving evidence of war crimes” because it is “intent on ensuring legal accountability, including individual criminal and command responsibility”.

“The killing of so many civilians cannot be dismissed as collateral damage. Not in a kibbutz. Not in a refugee camp. And not in a hospital,” the UN human rights chief said.

At least three Palestinian rights groups have filed a lawsuit with the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israel during the ongoing war. And this week, French lawyer Gilles Devers submitted a complaint to the prosecutor at the ICC on behalf of Gaza victims.

A US-based civil rights group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, has also sued Biden and senior members of his cabinet for “complicity” in the “unfolding genocide”.

It has been six days since Dina Alalami heard from her family in Gaza City after she received a text message from a relative informing her that they were alive.

The 33-year-old mother of two, who has been living in Qatar’s capital Doha for the past five years, has no idea whether her sister, two brothers-in-law, two nephews and three other relatives are still alive or have fallen victim to Israeli bombardment that has killed more than 11,500 people in Gaza.

“On Friday [November 10], they decided to leave their house and head south because the Israeli tanks had gotten closer and were surrounding the area,” Dina told Al Jazeera on Thursday.

“They took the decision because they said they wouldn’t survive the night if they stayed. We called the Red Cross and asked them to help secure a safe passage for them.”

But the Red Cross and Red Crescent said they were unable to help.

The family left their homes on November 10 during the four-hour pause – a day after Israel announced a daily four-hour window to allow Palestinians to flee from the north to the south.

At about noon, the family left the house waving white flags. Dina’s two sisters, who are married to two brothers, had left their homes on the first day of the war to stay at their in-laws’ villa, also in Gaza City.

Dina was talking to her youngest sister Rulla on the phone as the group cautiously moved forward when suddenly screams pierced the air. Their other sister Lina had crumpled to the floor, blood soaking through her shirt after an Israeli tank fired at them.

Rulla dragged Lina, getting her as far as the entrance of the Bakri building on Shuhada street, and tried to administer first aid. She saw a gunshot wound to her sister’s chest.

But as the Israeli tank fire continued, Rulla had no choice but to leave her and run inside. Rulla’s husband Bashar Khayal was shot in his hand, and his sister Dalia was also wounded.

Behind them, Bashar and Dalia’s grandmother Feryal was lying motionless on the street, killed.

Rulla told Dina exactly where they were and begged her to get in touch with the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) to save them. The building was behind al-Zaytoun pharmacy, Rulla said, by the Abbas intersection.

Dina called the ICRC. They told her they couldn’t go to the area.

‘Worst feeling in the world’

The next day, on Saturday, Dina got the news she had been dreading. Lina had died, her body still at the entrance of the building.

Dalia had also been killed, succumbing to her wounds.

Lina’s two young boys, four-year-old Mohammad and nine-month-old Majed, were among those trapped inside the building with their father Tareq Khayal, their grandmother Dalia, their aunt Suha, Rulla, and Bashar. They had no food, water or electricity.

Their phone batteries dying, Suha was able to send Dina one last message: “We are alive”.

Dina flew to Cairo, Egypt, over the weekend, where her father lives alone, and was joined by her brother who lives in Dubai.

“Just the thought of those two young boys not having water to drink or food to eat, the thought that they could die of dehydration or starvation…” her voice trails off, her breath catching.

“It’s the worst feeling in the world, this helplessness,” she said. “My sister got killed, and her body is still lying on the street. There’s no respect for the dead, and that alone burns our hearts.”

More than 11,300 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip since October 7, the majority of them women and children. The healthcare system has collapsed due to the total siege imposed on the territory by Israel, and on Wednesday, Israeli forces raided the largest hospital in the strip, al-Shifa, following through on their previous threats despite patients and thousands of displaced people sheltering there.

Dina last visited Gaza back in the summer for Rulla’s wedding to Bashar. The two had been engaged for seven years and tied the knot in August after Rulla finished her medical studies in Egypt.

“My sisters are six and seven years younger than me, so we were like best friends,” Dina said.

“I wish I was with them right now. I wish we would either die or live together.”