Gaza’s Kites Return — and Israel Katz Threatens Revenge

CROSSFIREARABIA — A handful of balloons and homemade kites drifting out of the Gaza Strip have managed to provoke an extraordinary response from Israel’s defence establishment, with Defence Minister Israel Katz threatening assassinations, forced evacuations and military strikes if the launches continue.

The objects at the centre of the latest confrontation are remarkably primitive.

Israeli media reported that several kites crossed from Gaza into Israeli communities surrounding the Strip in recent days. At least five have reportedly been detected, including one found in Kibbutz Kfar Aza over the weekend.

Significantly, the kites discovered so far were reported not to have been carrying explosives or incendiary material. Israeli reports said they did not pose a danger to residents according to the Jerusalem Post.

That has not stopped Katz from treating them as a major security threat. He announced Sunday he had instructed the army to respond “immediately and forcefully” to balloons, kites or drones crossing from Gaza.

Katz said Israel would regard every such launch as an act of war and made clear that, as far as the Israeli military response was concerned, there would be little distinction between a balloon, a kite and an unmanned aircraft.

“A balloon is treated like a kite, and a kite is treated like a drone, with or without explosives,” Katz said, according to Israeli media, the Israeli daily reported.  

He went considerably further.

Katz threatened action against those Israel believes are responsible for launching the objects, including assassinations. He also raised the possibility of ordering Palestinians to evacuate residential neighbourhoods and of attacking areas Israel claims are being used as launching sites Anadolu Ajansı reported him as saying.

The threat potentially turns an object made from little more than plastic, sticks and string into justification for a much broader military response.

Gaza Disputes the Israeli Account

But there is another side to the story.

Gaza’s Government Media Office, Sunday, rejected the Israeli portrayal of the kites and balloons as organized hostile operations.

Ismail Al-Thawabta, director-general of the office, told the Palestinian Sanad News Agency that the Israeli allegations were unfounded and accused Katz of using them to prepare public opinion for another escalation against Gaza.

According to Al-Thawabta, what Israel is describing as acts of war are, in some cases, simply homemade kites constructed by Gaza’s children from nylon bags and pieces of wood.

Children fly them as one of the few forms of recreation still available amid the devastation and shortages inside Gaza, he said.

The Government Media Office argued that the crude kites largely follow the direction of the wind and cannot be precisely controlled over long distances as another local news agency pointed out.

That distinction is crucial.

Israel is alleging that objects are deliberately being dispatched across the boundary. Gaza officials are saying that children’s kites can simply be caught by the wind and carried beyond the Strip.

Neither claim should automatically be accepted without independent evidence establishing who launched each object and with what intention.

What is established from Israeli reporting, however, is that the kites discovered in recent days were not carrying explosives or incendiary devices as per the Shorouk Arabic website.

An Echo of 2018

The sight of kites crossing the Gaza boundary nevertheless carries powerful memories for Israelis.

During the Great March of Return protests beginning in 2018, Palestinians developed incendiary kites and balloons into an improvised form of protest and resistance. Some carried burning material across the boundary, starting fires in agricultural fields and nature reserves in southern Israel.

The devices were technologically simple but became a surprisingly persistent problem for the Israeli military.

Today’s situation is different in one important respect: The objects reported in the latest incidents have not been found carrying the incendiary or explosive payloads associated with some of the 2018 launches.

Yet the political and military reaction has been immediate.

Katz has effectively established a doctrine under which the distinction between a kite and a drone can disappear once either crosses from Gaza.

A Kite Becomes an “Act of War”

There is a striking imbalance in the language surrounding the episode.

Gaza remains devastated by years of warfare, displacement and destruction. Children there improvise toys from whatever materials can still be found.

Against that background, an object consisting of nylon, wood and string can cross the boundary on the wind and suddenly enter an entirely different world of military terminology: drone, launch site, operator, assassination, evacuation and act of war.

The Gaza Government Media Office says that is precisely the danger.

It argues that depicting children’s homemade kites as a significant military threat could provide Israel with a new justification for attacking civilians and residential areas according to Alray⁠.

Israel, by contrast, says it cannot afford to wait for a kite or balloon to prove dangerous before responding. Katz’s position is that anything deliberately launched from Gaza toward Israeli communities must be treated as a hostile act.

That leaves one central question hanging over the latest confrontation:

Are these deliberate launches from Gaza, as Israel alleges, or are at least some simply children’s kites escaping into the wind, as Gaza officials maintain?

For the moment, publicly available evidence does not settle that question. What it does show is how little is now required to threaten another escalation around Gaza. No missile. No rocket. Not even an explosive.

Just a kite crossing the sky — followed by a defence minister promising assassinations, evacuations and force.

This article is based on information from AI and is reproduced in Crossfirearabia.com

Continue reading
Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

By Ali Bakir

On June 15, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced via the US social media platform X that a peace deal between the US and Iran had been reached, following over two months of mediation by his country. Sharif expressed gratitude to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye for their significant contributions, stating that the official signing ceremony would take place on June 19 in Switzerland. Following this announcement, a memorandum of understanding was signed electronically by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the US side, and by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on the Iranian side.

The reported agreement is characterized as a framework peace deal aimed at ending the 2026 Israel/US-Iran war and transitioning the current ceasefire into a broader diplomatic process. Although the text of the agreement has not yet been published, key reported elements include immediate cessation of military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiation period to address unresolved issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, alongside discussions on sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets during follow-up negotiations.

This agreement follows two significant developments. First, Israel conducted military strikes on Iranian targets in western and central Iran around a week ago, marking the first such actions since April. Explosions were reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and other cities in response to Iranian missile launches that were highly performative. Second, Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for what he described as slow progress in negotiations to end the conflict, indicating that the US could resume strikes against Iranian infrastructure.

5 bullet points on the agreement

Although the agreement does not necessarily mean that the root causes that prompted the war have fully disappeared, a few observations are worth mentioning and analyzing.

First, a lot of narrative spinning is occurring publicly at the moment. While the main parties are trying to sell the agreement as a victory, there are factions within the broader regional camps (such as hardliners in both Iran and Israel) that oppose it. Critics in Iran have labeled the agreement a “humiliating capitulation,” arguing that it involves unjustified concessions. Hardline opponents have publicly criticized the negotiating team, with Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stating that the latest draft is “more damaging” than previous versions. Similarly, Israeli officials emphasized that Israel was not directly involved in negotiating the US–Iran deal and does not necessarily consider itself bound by its provisions. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel would not withdraw from territory seized in Lebanon and would continue to act against threats from Hezbollah and Iran if necessary.

Second, the timing of the agreement suggests that Iran was running out of options. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) focused on messaging and performative measures, the gap between their narrative and reality widened, with Iran’s ability to endure further pressure significantly diminishing. Trump’s counter-blockade against Iran’s restriction of the Strait of Hormuz imposed significant economic costs on Iran, leading to the decision to sign the agreement. It is estimated that the blockade could have cost Iran over $24 billion in just two months — almost equal to Iran’s reported total reserves of foreign currency — leaving the regime with little choice but to agree to the terms or face economic collapse.

Third, despite the negative reactions from hardliners in both Iran and Israel, the agreement highlights Trump’s genuine interest in reaching a resolution with Iran, especially following last year’s swift 12-day war between Israel and Iran. However, radical elements in both Iran and Israel seem intent on using procrastination, escalation, or military actions to sabotage meaningful attempts to achieve peace. Given that there is reportedly a 60-day negotiation period following the signing of the agreement, it is likely that these factions will continue to work against a comprehensive resolution.

Fourth, while Pakistan played a significant role in the mediation process, Qatar’s involvement was also crucial, as acknowledged by American, Pakistani, Saudi, and Turkish officials. Notably, neither the Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman nor the ministry itself reported any independent measures taken by Qatar, apart from endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts. In fact, a Qatari spokesman denied any independent role in the mediation at this stage. Qatar’s involvement appears to have been executed at the request of the United States and had several dimensions.

Primarily, Qatar facilitated technical issues between the US and Iran, such as enabling the transfer of Iranian funds without direct US involvement, thereby avoiding the perception of it being a US initiative or taxpayer-funded. Additionally, Qatar played a role in establishing a communication channel between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which emerged later in the mediation process. Finally, Qatar aligned itself with Saudi Arabia’s position, providing support for the Pakistani initiative.

Changing actors

Fifth, two awkward positions regarding the agreement can be highlighted. Firstly, the Europeans have been largely inactive in resolving the crisis yet somehow managed to host the official signing ceremony between the Americans and Iranians. Instead of crediting Pakistan, Switzerland offered to host the ceremony, which can be seen as an act of opportunism. Secondly, Oman, historically a favored mediator between the US and Iran, has been notably absent from this current arrangement. Oman’s position during this war was not popular in the Gulf Cooperation Council and beyond. According to a senior US administration official, Oman was removed from its mediation role in negotiations with Iran after the US concluded that Muscat had acted “very duplicitously” during the talks.

Finally, we must approach the prospects of the agreement with caution. It is essential to recognize that this is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a transitional framework. The future of the agreement will largely depend on the outcomes of negotiations in the next 60 days. Given that several factions within Iran and Israel are opposed to the agreement, we should not dismiss the possibility of sabotage, particularly from Israel.

Ali Bakir is an assistant professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University and senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. Anadolu

Continue reading
Gaza City: At What Cost Occupation?

Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir officially approved a plan on Sunday to occupy Gaza City, local media reported.

Defense Minister Israel Katz is scheduled to formally approve the plan next Tuesday, according to Israel’s official broadcaster, Kan.

The Security and Political Cabinet will meet later this week to approve the plan, Kan said, adding that Nitzan Alon, the army’s official in charge of prisoners and hostages, took part in the discussions that led to the decision.

The plan includes a broad forced evacuation of Palestinians over at least two weeks, beginning with a military operation followed by a gradual entry into the city. Israeli authorities will present the evacuation plan to US officials at their request.

Channel 12 reported that the plan will be ratified by the government before the end of the week.

On Aug. 8, the Israeli Cabinet approved Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal to gradually occupy the Gaza Strip, beginning with Gaza City.

As part of the plan, on Aug. 11, Israeli forces launched a major attack on the al-Zaytoun neighborhood, including house demolitions using explosive-laden robots, artillery strikes, random gunfire, and forced displacement, witnesses told Anadolu.

Israel has killed more than 61,900 Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023. The military campaign has devastated the enclave and brought it to the verge of famine.

Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on the enclave.

Continue reading
Israel’s Top General Fears Reoccupation of Gaza

Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir described Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to reoccupy the Gaza Strip as a “strategic trap”. Speaking on Wednesday, he stressed that it will exhaust the army for years to come and endanger the lives of prisoners.

Israel’s Channel 13 reported that a heated discussion took place between Zamir and Netanyahu in a meeting, Tuesday evening, which it described as “difficult and direct,” in light of the latter’s decision to proceed with the occupation of Gaza.

Zamir described the decision as a “strategic trap,” stressing it will exhaust the Israeli army for years later and endanger the lives of the Israeli prisoners in Gaza who are believed to be down to 20.

On Tuesday evening, Netanyahu held a closed-door meeting that lasted three hours, including a limited number of ministers and senior security officials, during which he discussed the plan to encircle Gaza City and the central military bases as the first stage of the occupation of the Strip, according to what the Broadcasting Authority quoted from an unnamed Israeli official.

Channel 13 reported that Zamir “proposed an alternative to the occupation operation, which is to isolate the Gaza Strip and impose a tight siege on Gaza City, along with airstrikes on Hamas positions. However, Netanyahu rejected the proposal and insisted on proceeding with the plan to occupy the Strip.”

Senior military officials, who were not named, quoted Zamir as hinting during the meeting at a threat to resign, saying: “I only have one bullet in my mouth.”

The security cabinet is scheduled to meet tomorrow, Thursday, to discuss the plan to occupy Gaza City and the central Gaza Strip, which Chief of Staff Zamir opposes.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu’s son, Yair, launched a sharp attack on Zamir, accusing him of “leading a rebellion and a military coup.”

On Wednesday, Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz announced his support for Zamir in the face of criticism from Netanyahu’s son, Yair.

Katz said in a post on the X platform that “Major General Zamir is leading the army and adopting a strong and aggressive policy.”

He continued: “It is the right and duty of the Chief of Staff to express his position, and after the political leadership makes decisions, the army will implement them firmly.”

Israel previously occupied the Gaza Strip for 38 years, between 1967 and 2005.

Tel Aviv estimates that there are 50 Israeli prisoners in Gaza, 20 of whom are still alive, while more than 10,800 Palestinians are languishing in its prisons, suffering from torture, starvation, and medical neglect, many of whom have died, according to Palestinian and Israeli human rights and media reports.

On July 24, Israel withdrew from indirect negotiations with Hamas in Doha, following Tel Aviv’s intransigence regarding the withdrawal from Gaza, the end of the war, Palestinian prisoners, and the mechanism for distributing humanitarian aid.

According to a poll published Sunday by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies, 52 percent of Israelis hold their government fully or partially responsible for the failure to reach an agreement with Hamas.

Hamas has repeatedly declared its willingness to release Israeli prisoners “in one go” in exchange for an end to the war of extermination, the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Gaza, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.

The opposition and the prisoners’ families assert that Netanyahu is seeking partial deals that would allow the continuation of the war while ensuring his continued rule. He fears the collapse of his government if the most extremist faction, which refuses to end the war, withdraws from it.

Domestically, Netanyahu is being tried on corruption charges that would result in his imprisonment if convicted. The International Criminal Court is seeking his arrest on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians in Gaza.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has been committing genocide in the Gaza Strip and starving Palestinians. On March 2, it tightened its measures by closing the crossings to humanitarian, relief, and medical aid, causing a famine that has reached “catastrophic” levels.

The US-backed genocide left more than 211,000 Palestinians dead or wounded, most of them children and women, and more than 9,000 missing, in addition to hundreds of thousands of displaced persons and a famine that claimed the lives of many according to Anadolu.

Continue reading
Deflecting Netanyahu’s Problems

By Jonathan Fenton-Harvey 

Just a day before launching airstrikes on Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing bribery and fraud charges, narrowly survived a Knesset vote that could have collapsed his government. Alongside the legal charges, Netanyahu’s domestic popularity has plummeted over corruption, economic woes and failures to return Israeli hostages from Gaza. But for Netanyahu, the war offered more than military momentum: It has given him a temporary reprieve.

Within days, Israeli airstrikes reportedly weakened Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, eliminated senior military figures, and killed hundreds of civilians. On X, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz claimed “civilians in Tehran will pay a collective price,” signaling a destructive intent. As Iran has hit back, firing missiles at Israeli infrastructure and cities, diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program has all but collapsed.

Even if a ceasefire occurs, Israeli-Iranian tensions have escalated to near irreversibility as long as both the current Israeli and Iranian governments remain in power. Israel presents the assault on Iran as a necessary move to neutralize its nuclear ambitions, a claim repeated over the years, despite the lack of convincing evidence that Tehran was close to building a nuclear bomb. In reality, the war is driven more by Netanyahu’s personal survival than just Israel’s.

As with Israel’s prolonged onslaught on Gaza, this conflict appears designed to consolidate domestic support – attempting to rally the population around the image of an existential enemy – just as it did with Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza. That same logic extended into Lebanon, where Israel’s assault weakened Tehran’s ally Hezbollah and coincided with a jump in public approval for Netanyahu’s Likud party. But with neither Gaza nor Lebanon yielding lasting political dividends, Iran has become the next catalyst in Netanyahu’s survival strategy.  

A fragile government

For Netanyahu, projecting external threats has not only been a means of consolidating power, but also unity. His government, already fragile, is also caught between deeply divergent factions – secular versus ultra-Orthodox, nationalist versus technocratic. This internal fragmentation of Israeli civil society raised the specter of a looming civil war, warned of even before the Gaza war. But Israel’s wars and the projection of external enemies aim to unify Israeli society, at least for now.

There is also the international dimension. Netanyahu and other officials are wanted by the International Criminal Court over war crimes in Gaza, while Western backers face domestic pressure to end arms sales to Israel. The Israeli initiated Iran conflict has provided Netanyahu with yet another political lifeline as Western governments have clearly aligned with Israel. The G7 and the EU have expressed support for Israel, while the US, UK, Germany and France had pledged to uphold Israel’s security.

Even though Western public opinion on Israel has shifted recently – including legal cases and political pressure – arms sales are still expected to continue, or even increase. Moreover, the focus on Iran has also taken away spotlight from Israel’s actions in Gaza, which continues to endure Israeli airstrikes and blockade-induced starvation.  

Shielded internationally

Before the escalation, US President Donald Trump, however, had taken an unexpected turn. His truce with Yemen’s Houthis and openness to renewed nuclear talks with Iran suggest a willingness to pursue diplomacy – even if it angers Israel. Trump appears caught between appeasing his pro-Israel support base and his America First-driven MAGA base – the latter of which prompted him to override Israeli objections in favor of US interests, namely economic engagement with Iran. Netanyahu is certainly banking on Trump siding with Israel in the event of a deeper escalation with Iran. Trump’s own “urging” of Iranians to leave Tehran signals an alignment with Tel Aviv, even if he may seek to continue keeping the door open for future diplomacy with Iran. Ultimately, the cost of Netanyahu’s bid to maintain his own grip on power is regional instability.

The war has bought Netanyahu time. Less ideologically hardline voices have resigned from his coalition government over failures in Gaza, allowing him to consolidate power around extremist figures like Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben Gvir and Israel Katz. Yet this hardline government, which Netanyahu has fostered to maintain his own position, is further contributing to Israel’s diplomatic and economic isolation. That’ll undoubtedly add to the economic costs of the war on Gaza, which has cost around 10% of its GDP and scared foreign investors off, creating future fiscal instability in Israel.

However, the Netanyahu-led multi-front offensives in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and now Iran also reflect a notable historic pattern: regimes tend to lash out when they feel increasingly threatened or cornered. Netanyahu’s calculus, partly driven by a sense that Israel is facing compounding global scrutiny for its military operations, may further harm its global image – even if Western governments continue to support Israel’s actions for the time being.

For his own political survival, Netanyahu will resist efforts to halt the violence, unless sustained international pressure forces Israel to halt its operations. Because he knows that, if he ends the wars, he’ll almost certainly face renewed calls for his indictment in Israel, or be unseated in the next Israeli elections, due by October 2026. As such, he has every incentive to prolong the violence unless international pressure forces a change in course. If Trump or other key powers push for de-escalation and accountability, it could shift the trajectory toward regional stability, especially as Iran weighs withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Otherwise, Netanyahu’s own instincts risk plunging the region – and inadvertently Israel – into deeper regional instability that could ultimately harm Israel itself.  

The author is a researcher and journalist focusing on conflict and geopolitics in the Middle East and North Africa, primarily related to the Gulf region. He has contributed this article to Anadolu

Continue reading