A hacked trove of emails reveals the revolving door of political leaders, tech billionaires, and intelligence officers.

The world order as we knew it has been overturned.

By seizing a sitting head of state and announcing direct American administration over a sovereign country – without international authorisation, coalition partners or even the language of temporariness – he crossed a boundary the post-1945 international system was meant to keep intact.

Katz's statements completely contradict the Israel Defense Forces' official claim – which it has been making ever since the West Bank operation began – that it isn't evicting the population there

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may whine all he likes about how U.S. President-elect Donald Trump made him do it. He is already selling the "I had no choice, we managed to postpone this for months" message to his ultranationalist, messianic, warmongering ruling coalition partners. But the truth is very clear: he has agreed to a deal he could and should have signed many months ago.

The deal that may – and still may not – be agreed and signed on Tuesday or Wednesday was on the table last May, again in July and practically ever since. But Mr. Netanyahu, in the name of "an existential war" that will produce a "total victory," waited for the U.S. election and then for the presidential inauguration before agreeing to a deal.

Explaining why he opposes the deal, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir specifically recalled how he previously prevented a deal by threatening Netanyahu, validating the claim that the prime minister's entire calculus was politically motivated. He never intended to end the war even when since-dismissed Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and the Israel Defense Forces stressed that all military goals had been achieved. The "strategic importance" of the Philadelphi corridor along the Gaza-Sinai border, meanwhile, was a bogus and cynical argument he had concocted.

2. Transfer of civilian population (paras. 115-119)
   In its Wall Advisory Opinion, the Court found that Israel’s settlement policy was in breach of the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that “[t]he Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
   In the Court’s view, there is nothing in the terms or the context of the provision, or in the object and purpose or the drafting history of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to suggest that that provision prohibits only the forcible transfer of parts of the occupying Power’s civilian population into the occupied territory. In the present case, there is extensive evidence of Israel’s policy of providing incentives for the relocation of Israeli individuals and businesses into the West Bank, as well as for its industrial and agricultural development by settlers. There is also evidence that Israel regularly legalizes outposts that have been established in contravention of domestic Israeli legislation and that Israel’s construction of settlements is accompanied by specially designed civilian infrastructure in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which integrates the settlements into the territory of Israel.
   In light of the above, the Court considers that the transfer by Israel of settlers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Israel’s maintenance of their presence, is contrary to the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
3. Confiscation or requisitioning of land (paras. 120-123)
   The Court further notes that the expansion of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is based on the confiscation or requisitioning of large areas of land.
   Observing that, in the present case, the public property confiscated or requisitioned for the development of Israeli settlements benefits the civilian population of settlers, to the detriment of the local Palestinian population, the Court concludes that Israel’s land policies are not in conformity with Articles 46, 52 and 55 of the Hague Regulations.

Mr Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners want to annex parts of the Syrian Golan.

Testimony from members of mainly female look-out units adds fuel to accusations that Netanyahu badly misread the dangers from Gaza.

The Israeli military has regularly forced captured Palestinians to conduct dangerous reconnaissance missions, using them as human shields to avoid putting Israeli soldiers at risk. This practice, which is illegal under both Israeli and international law, has been used by at least 11 squads in five cities in Gaza, often with the involvement of Israeli intelligence agencies.

suspended to protect her from the Israeli kids chanting “May your village burn"

'Our lives are more important than their lives': Gazans not suspected of terrorism are detained and sent as human shields to search tunnels and houses before IDF soldiers enter, with the full knowledge of senior Israeli officers, several sources say; IDF claims this practice is forbidden

elying on an academic consensus based on statements of experts on genocide, human rights, human rights law and Holocaust historians.

“To insert a stick in a person’s rectum, is that legitimate?” asked Ahmad Tibi, a Palestinian lawmaker during a meeting, showed a video verified by several media outlets. “Yes! If he is a Nukhba everything is legitimate to do him,” screamed Milwidsky back.

At a military base that now doubles as a detention center in Israel’s Negev desert, an Israeli working at the facility snapped two photographs of a scene that he says continues to haunt him.

The IDF’s identification process is ongoing. In particular, the IDF is still trying to make an
accurate determination as to whether an additional 428 males between the ages of 16-50 (20% of
total fatalities and almost all of the unclassified fatalities) were involved or uninvolved in the
hostilities. Based on the IDF’s past experience, it is highly probable that in the upcoming months,
new information will surface demonstrating that some of these individuals were involved in combat
against Israel in the 2014 Gaza Conflict.

In the Jewish sample, we found large differences between political camps, though in all three there is a large majority who think that the suffering of the Palestinian population should not influence Israel’s planning of the war – almost total consensus on the Right (89%), more than three-quarters of those in the Center (77.5%), and just over half of those on the Left (53%).

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel hereby submits its second report to the General Assembly. The report examines the use of force by Israel and the de facto authorities in Gaza.