Ben Gvir’s comments, made in a podcast of a former Gaza hostage, have triggered widespread criticism in Germany, traditionally one of Israel’s staunchest international allies. — AFP pic
Summary
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz condemned Israeli minister Itamar Ben Gvir's remarks about killing people in Gaza as inhumane and violating international law.
The comments sparked widespread criticism in Germany, with discussions on potential European sanctions against Israel.
Germany also criticised Israeli settlement expansion plans in the West Bank, saying it threatens the two-state solution.
First Published: Wednesday, 19 Aug 2026 7:17 PM MYT
BERLIN, Aug 19 — German Chancellor Friedrich Merz today condemned remarks by Israel’s far-right national security minister that Israel should kill 30 to 40 people every night in Gaza, a government spokesman said.
“The chancellor strongly condemns the inhumane appeals made by Minister (Itamar) Ben Gvir, which violate international law,” spokesman Sebastian Hille said. “They are unacceptable.”
Ben Gvir’s comments, made in a podcast of a former Gaza hostage, have triggered widespread criticism in Germany, traditionally one of Israel’s staunchest international allies.
Lars Klingbeil, German vice chancellor and finance minister, said in a TV interview Tuesday that Ben Gvir’s comments “must have consequences”, adding that sanctions were being discussed at the European level.
Germany also condemned Israeli plans for settlement expansion in the so-called E1 area of the occupied West Bank, saying it jeopardises the prospect for a two-state solution.
“Our message is clear: there must be no further steps toward annexation in the West Bank,” said Hille.
“No formal ones, but also no political, structural, or other measures whose impact is increasingly and obviously leading toward annexation. They run counter to a two-state solution.” — AFP
US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Benfold—named after a ‘Medal of Honor’ awardee for his heroism in the Korean War—was stranded in China’s “backyard” – the South China Sea for four days after it abruptly lost power.
The guided-missile destroyer reportedly spent four days adrift after it lost power last month in the South China Sea, which is almost entirely claimed by China as its sovereign territory and is a frequent site of showdowns between Beijing and other claimants, most notably the Philippines, a US treaty ally in the region.
“On July 24, 2026, while conducting routine operations in the Indo-Pacific, Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold (DDG 65) reported an engineering casualty involving its generators, causing a loss of power,” Navy Cmdr. Matthew Comer, spokesperson for the 7th Fleet, said in a statement to USNI News on August 17, 2026. “There were no injuries to the crew, who demonstrated resilience, grit, professionalism and unwavering steadiness in their response,” he added.
The incident occurred when the USS Benfold was conducting routine operations in the Indo-Pacific as part of the USS George Washington carrier strike group (CSG), which has now been redeployed to the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility.
In addition to the ship’s maneuvering capability, its galley services, toilets, air conditioning, and potable water were affected due to the power loss, Cmdr. Comer stated.
Other ships in the CSG aided USS Benfold, including USS Robert Smalls, which reportedly provided the stranded crew with meals and other help.
On July 28, Benfold was transported to Subic Bay in the Philippines by contractor tugboats, where staff from the Japan Regional Maintenance Center’s Ship Repair Facility greeted it and provided contracted housing off the ship.
According to Cmdr. Comer, power was restored on July 30, and all repairs were completed by the time the ship finished a fuel berth shift on August 7. The destroyer finally departed Subic Bay on August 8, 2026.
“Pakistan One – the C-130 – has crashed. No one is visible.”
With those stark words, General Mirza Aslam Beg, then Pakistan’s Vice Chief of Army Staff, confirmed the death of the country’s longest-serving military ruler, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, on 17 August 1988.
Thirty-eight years later, the crash of that Lockheed C-130 Hercules – one of the world’s most reliable military transport aircraft – remains one of South Asia’s enduring mysteries.
Was it a genuine accident, mechanical failure, internal sabotage, or an elaborate international conspiracy? Why were the findings of the inquiry commission never released? Was there a cover-up? No definitive answer has ever emerged.
Over the decades, suspicion has fallen on an extraordinary range of intelligence agencies: the Soviet KGB, the American CIA, India’s R&AW, Israel’s Mossad, and even Pakistan’s own ISI.
Rarely in modern history has the death of a single leader held such potential benefit for so many mutually antagonistic players.
So, what made General Zia-ul-Haq so polarising that he could find himself on the target list of forces that were otherwise bitter rivals, such as the CIA and the KGB, and the R&AW and the ISI?
The Last Flight of the Military Dictator
On August 17, 1988, Pakistan’s longest-serving military ruler, General Zia-ul-Haq, who ruled Pakistan with an iron fist for over 11 years, died in a plane crash near Bhawalpur.
Besides the pilots, Wing Commander Mashhood Hassan and Flight Lieutenant Sajid, 29 people were on the Lockheed C-130 Hercules.
They included, among others, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen Akhtar Abdur Rahman; the Chief of General Staff, Mohammed Afzaal; the American ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphel; and the senior US military attaché, Brig Gen Herbert M. Wassom.
Everyone on board the flight died in the accident.
In less than five minutes, almost all the principal actors involved in training and arming the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan over the last decade were dead.
American journalist Jay Epstein’s account of Gen Zia’s death in a 1989 issue of Vanity Fair read: “Villagers…saw Pak-1 lurching up and down in the sky, as if it were on an invisible roller coaster. After its third loop, it plunged directly towards the desert, burying itself in the soil. Then, it exploded and, as the fuel burnt, became a ball of fire.”
The death of senior American officials meant that the investigation was carried out in both Pakistan and the US, apart from an internal investigation carried out by Lockheed Martin.
There were many theories: A missile hit, mid-air explosion, deadly gas leak, fire on board, international conspiracy, or internal sabotage.
A crate of fresh mangoes, loaded onto the aircraft at the last minute, also triggered conspiracy theories, including journalist Mohammed Hanif’s debut novel, ‘A Case of Exploding Mangoes.’ It suggested that the mangoes were sprayed with a poisonous substance that made the pilots unconscious.
Nearly a month after the accident, a 365-page technical report on the crash was presented to Pakistan President Ghulam Ishaq Khan.
The report concluded that the plane had not disintegrated in midair; it had not been struck by a missile; nor had there been a fire on board. The condition of the propeller blades indicated that the engines were running at full speed, and the electrical systems and fuel pumps were operating normally.
However, a chemical analysis of the wreckage, carried out at the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology in Islamabad, found foreign elements in unusual quantities. For instance, there were traces of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), an explosive that has since been used in several terrorist attacks, including at least two whose objective was to down an airplane. Residues of antimony and phosphorus, not normally found in aircraft structures, fuel, etc were also present, the Dawn reported.
The report concluded that, “in the absence of a technical reason, the only other possible cause of the accident is the occurrence of a criminal act or sabotage”. It recommended ordering an investigation to identify the perpetrators.
However, it is precisely the identity of the perpetrators that has fueled some of the wildest conspiracy theories over the years, as intelligence agencies from the CIA, the KGB, Mossad, India’s R&AW, and even Pakistan’s ISI have all been blamed for Zia’s murder.
CIA to KGB, & Mossad to R&AW and ISI – How Zia’s Death Could Have Benefited Such a Wide Range of Actors
According to a report on the technical causes of the crash prepared by the Pakistan Government’s Board of Inquiry, explosives found in the wreckage indicated “involvement of a specialist organization well versed with carrying out such tasks and possessing the means and abilities for its execution.”
Citing this report, journalist and author Robert D Kaplan wrote in The New York Times that only three organizations active in Pakistan at the time against the government fit that description: the KGB, the KGB-created Afghan intelligence group WAD, and the research and analysis wing of India.
However, Kaplan said R&AW’s involvement was less likely.
“Zia was certainly not India’s friend, but his actions as an adversary were relatively predictable,” he wrote.Credits Dawn.
He said that the KGB certainly had the technological know-how, the network and the motive to carry out the bombing.
By 1988, the Soviets had already spent nearly a decade in Afghanistan, and the situation was progressively deteriorating for the Soviets.
One of the main reasons was Pakistan. The Zia-ul-Haq administration was openly supporting the Mujahiddins, providing weapons, financial and intelligence support, training, and safe havens to Mujahiddin fighters.
Therefore, by eliminating Zia-ul-Haq, the Soviets would have got at least some temporary relief in their Afghanistan War.
However, Kaplan notes that the presence of the US Ambassador on the plane makes Soviet involvement less likely.
“The Soviets would not have jeopardized Glasnost by assassinating an American of this rank,” he said.
Still, it must be remembered that the US Ambassador was not scheduled to be on the flight and was invited by Zia himself at the last moment.
So, the Soviets would not have known that the US Ambassador would also be on the flight.
Another suspect was the CIA, which had become concerned with Zia’s attempts to make the first Islamic nuclear bomb and his clandestine efforts to smuggle the components for it out of the U.S.
Early in the Afghan War, Zia struck a hard bargain with the Reagan administration that they would look the other way in return for Pakistan’s support to the Mujahiddins in Afghanistan, while Islamabad slowly developed the nuclear bomb.
During the Cold War, the US’s first priority was to defeat the Soviets. So, they ignored Pakistani attempts to develop the nuclear bomb as long as Islamabad helped defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan.
However, by 1988, it was well known that the Soviet strategy in Afghanistan was falling apart and that they were seeking an exit.
Consequently, the criticality of Pakistani support for the US was no longer the same, and Washington was less inclined to accept a Pakistani nuclear bomb.
Notably, in July 1987, U.S. authorities arrested Arshad Z. Pervez, a Pakistani-born Canadian businessman, in Philadelphia after a sting operation. He was charged with attempting to illegally buy and export about 25 tons of high-strength maraging 350 steel alloy, along with quantities of beryllium, both materials restricted for export due to their nuclear uses.
Pakistan officially denied government involvement and any nuclear-weapons intent, calling the materials for other uses, but U.S. investigators and declassified records indicated the network had official connections, protection, and funding.
Pervez’s arrest in the US, analysts say, was a clear message to Zia that the CIA will no longer tolerate Pakistan’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb.
At the same time, the US was also concerned that the Zia administration was diverting the financial support and weapons provided by the US for the Mujahiddin fighters to Kashmiri militants and opening a new front of Islamic Jihad against India.
Similarly, India had its own grievances against Zia. Under him, Pakistan supported the Khalistani insurgency in Indian Punjab and was now providing weapons, money, and training to militants to support the Kashmir insurgency.
Islamabad’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb were another motive for the R&AW.
The same nuclear bomb also provided a strong motive for Israel’s Mossad.
Pakistan was frequently marketing its efforts to build a nuclear bomb as an Islamic bomb. There were apprehensions that Islamabad could provide the technological know-how to build the bomb to other Islamic countries, such as Iraq and Libya, that could create trouble for Israel.
Notably, Israel had proposed to India a secret plan to bomb Pakistan’s Kahuta uranium enrichment facility in 1984. This was inspired by Israel’s successful 1981 Osirak strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor.
Reportedly, India initially agreed but later refused. Many wonder: did this make Israel look for a Plan B to stop Pakistan’s nuclear bomb?
Notably, John Gunther Dean, then US ambassador to India, said in 2005 that he suspected Israel’s secret service Mossad of downing Gen Zia’s aircraft in an effort to stop Pakistan developing the nuclear bomb.
He also said that when he reported these suspicions to Washington, he was accused of being mentally unbalanced and subsequently forced into retirement.
It’s been nearly four decades since Zia was killed in the C-130 plane crash.
Perhaps we will never know what happened and who was behind it. But the mere fact that the names of diverse intelligence agencies from the CIA to the KGB, and from Mossad and R&AW to Pakistan’s own ISI come up makes it one of South Asia’s most enduring murder mysteries.
Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
‘Tit for tat’: Why is Trump cozying up to North Korea’s Kim Jong Un again?
Analysts say Trump’s attempted rapprochement with Kim Jong Un is driven by political signals to both Pyongyang and Seoul.
Save
Share
North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump meet on the south side of the Military Demarcation Line that divides North and South Korea in June 2019 [AFP]
US President Donald Trump has again praised the leader of nuclear-armed North Korea while rebuking key ally Seoul for failing to help Washington fight Iran, reigniting one of the most contentious diplomatic issues from his first term.
Trump said on Monday that North Korea leader Kim Jong Un had responded to his recent overtures with a “very positive” exchange, a day after he ordered the Pentagon to scale back military drills with South Korea designed to prepare for a possible war with Pyongyang.
The US president said his ties with Kim, whom he met three times during his first term, made the Korean Peninsula “much safer”. The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that Trump was pushing aides to arrange a meeting with Kim as soon as this autumn, ahead of the midterm elections on November 3.
Analysts say a summit with Kim, irrespective of its outcome, would be a useful feather on Trump’s cap, particularly as Washington’s unpopular war on Iran stands unresolved and his electoral pledge to end the Ukraine war remains unfulfilled.
Yet, Trump’s effort to cozy up to Kim may also have to do with exercising leverage vis-a-vis South Korea, in a typical example of the US president’s transactional approach to diplomacy.
“Trump may want to put pressure on South Korea … following [Seoul]’s reluctance to cooperate with the US in the Iran war and the slow progress in South Korean investment in the United States,” Yong-Chool Ha, director of the Center for Korean Studies at the Henry Jackson School of International Studies in Washington, told Al Jazeera.
“This could be seen as a form of tit-for-tat diplomacy, despite the ongoing alliance between the two countries.”
How has the US-North Korea relationship evolved under Trump?
Trump threatened North Korea with “fire and fury” in 2017 after reports that Pyongyang had produced a nuclear warhead small enough to fit inside its missiles.
The US president held a first, historic face-to-face meeting with Kim in Singapore in 2018, where they agreed to the “complete denuclearisation” of the Korean Peninsula. But subsequent meetings in 2019, in Hanoi and in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), failed to build on the initial agreement — even though Trump became the first and only US president to briefly cross over into North Korea.
Since then, North Korea has expanded its missile and nuclear capabilities, continued missile testing and developed close military ties with Russia. Nevertheless, Trump says his relationship with Kim remains “unthreatening and respectful”.
Yong-Chool Ha, who also lectures at the University of Washington, said Trump may believe that the Hanoi summit failed because of pressure from critics, including his own former national security adviser John Bolton, who had urged the US government to pursue denuclearisation or think about the possibility of pushing for regime change in Pyongyang.
“Trump may now think that, without such constraints, he can make a deal with Kim this time,” Ha said.
Why would Trump opt to exercise leverage against ally South Korea?
Trump took aim at South Korea on his Truth Social network on Sunday night, abruptly announcing that he had ordered the Pentagon to scale back “inappropriate and hostile” military drills with Seoul.
He later linked the decision to South Korea’s refusal to help with the US-Israel war on Iran. “We can’t go around and protect all of these countries, especially when they’re not there to help us,” Trump said in the Oval Office.
The 11-day Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises are designed to prepare for a possible war with North Korea. The United States stations about 28,500 troops in South Korea to bolster the country’s defences, a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War that ended with an armistice rather than a peace treaty.
Scaling back these drills creates tensions for Seoul, which depends on Washington to deter North Korea. Pyongyang decries the drills as dress rehearsals for an invasion.
Eugene Park, a historian of East Asia at the University of Nevada in the US, said Trump’s decision reflected Washington’s shifting strategic priorities. “The United States today faces greater demands on its military resources than it did during Trump’s first term, including ongoing commitments in the Middle East and mounting concerns about force readiness and defence-industrial capacity,” he told Al Jazeera.
According to Park, the conflict involving Iran has altered the broader geopolitical environment in which Korean Peninsula diplomacy must now take place, as Washington now has a strong incentive to avoid the emergence of another major crisis beyond the Middle East.
Money is also likely to have been at the forefront in the US president’s decision.
Rachel Minyoung Lee, senior fellow for the Stimson Center’s Korea Program and 38 North, said Trump may have used the drills as leverage “to expedite South Korea’s investment and possibly to lay the groundwork for increasing South Korea’s defence cost-sharing”.
Trump has been pushing for the alliance to evolve towards a more symmetrical structure, where Seoul has greater responsibility for regional security. During his first term, Trump demanded a sharp increase in South Korea’s contribution to hosting US troops, arguing South Korea pays too little.
Economic tensions could also be a factor, Lee suggested.
Trump’s first administration renegotiated a bilateral free trade agreement and imposed tariffs affecting South Korean steel. Washington initially threatened 25-percent tariffs before agreeing to a 15-percent rate in return for South Korean investment and other commitments, including favourable regulation for American technology companies.
The president later threatened higher tariffs again, accusing Seoul of moving too slowly to implement the agreement.
“The lack of any concrete steps on South Korea’s part to invest in the US, which was the condition for keeping tariffs to 15 percent, appears to be a huge frustration for Trump,” Minyoung Lee said.
Does this mark a new chapter in US-North Korea relations?
Not yet, at least. According to Minyoung Lee, North Korea does not trust the US. Additionally, following the US-Israeli attack on Iran in February, Pyongyang has consistently portrayed Washington as an “untrustworthy actor and a disturber of the international order”.
Kim earlier this year made clear that a precondition for friendly ties was for Washington to recognise North Korea’s “constitutional status” — a reference to North Korea’s nuclear-armed status. “Even for President Trump, who is eager to engage Kim Jong Un again, recognising North Korea’s nuclear status seems like a very tall order,” Minyoung Lee said.
Overall, the analyst said, Trump appears to have used the scaling back of joint military exercises with South Korea to “kill two birds with one stone: exercise leverage against South Korea and to remind the world, including [Kim], that he remains interested in reengaging North Korea”.
1:05
Scaling back US-South Korea drills may fail to woo Kim away from China
The veteran journalist says if left unchecked, the repercussions could be detrimental to the country.
Veteran journalist A Kadir Jasin cites the poor voter turnout in general elections since 2013, and attendance at events organised by political parties, including last Sunday’s DAP special congress.
PETALING JAYA: Veteran journalist A Kadir Jasin said the public is suffering from political fatigue, citing declining voter turnout since the 2013 general election, and poor attendance at events organised by political parties.
If left unchecked, the repercussions could be detrimental to the country, he said.
In a Facebook post, Kadir said voter turnout at the 2013 general election was 84%, before dipping to 82.32% in 2018. In 2022, voter turnout stood at 74.5%.
He said the DAP special congress held on Sunday saw only 51.2% of its 4,264 delegates attending.
He also pointed out that splinter parties such as Pejuang were wiped out in the last general election, while mainstream parties such as PKR, Amanah, Bersatu and Bersama suffered huge losses in the recent state elections.
“How are we not worn out? Just look at how political leaders toy with the emotions of party members and their supporters,” he said.
Kadir said the fatigue could also be attributed to infighting within political parties.
He singled out PKR as an example, noting the controversies surrounding Rafizi Ramli, who left the party after losing the party polls, and Nurul Izzah Anwar, who recently stepped down as the party’s deputy president.
If this political fatigue lingered, he said, it would spell disaster for the country.
“It is not impossible that one day we will be ruled by a kleptocratic or kakistocratic government,” he said.
Credits Dawn.
