Wednesday, April 08, 2026

 

The backlash against the backlash: Socialist feminism & left politics in a time of reaction

By Diana O’Dwyer
Published 

feminism versus far right Rupture

First published at Rupture.

After every crisis of capitalism comes protest and social upheaval — of a progressive or reactionary character. The 2008 crash was followed by a decade of progressive mass movements: Occupy, Black Lives Matter, feminist movements for abortion rights and against gender-based violence, and revolutions and near-revolutions like the Arab Spring. In Ireland, we saw mass movements against water charges, for marriage equality and abortion rights and progressive legislation on gender recognition. Just like in the ‘60s and early ‘70s, when the civil rights movement was followed by second-wave feminism, the gay rights movement, the movement against the Vietnam War and May ‘68, the mass movements of the 2010s sparked other mass movements.

Unfortunately, both waves of progressive mass protest were also followed by, first, a global economic crisis and then a conservative backlash. In the 1970s and ‘80s, this meant the oil crisis, Reagan, Thatcher and neoliberalism. In the 2020s, the Covid crisis accelerated a growing far-right backlash and ushered in a new phase of reaction across the world. If you were looking to pinpoint a date when the anti-feminist backlash took off, it would probably be Trump’s first election as US President in November 2016. A rapist running on an anti-choice platform, Trump promised to overturn Roe v. Wade. This ultimately happened in June 2022, shortly after the Depp vs. Heard trial sounded the death knell for #MeToo. Trump’s second Presidency has put the backlash into turbo drive. The most powerful man on earth is again a known rapist. DEI programmes have been decimated, reproductive rights are under attack and traditional gender roles are being forcibly reaffirmed.

The seeds of the backlash were already there pre-Covid, but lockdown isolated people from real life, and the algorithm enticed them into noxious online echo chambers. This created the perfect environment for a paranoid conspiracy theory pipeline, leading from Covid denialism and anti-vax propaganda to racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. We all have friends, family members or co-workers who have lost their minds since Covid - their brains swamped by a never-ending flood of shit.

To paraphrase Marx and Engels, no matter how much progress we make under capitalism, short of a revolution, we cannot finally rid ourselves of the “muck of ages” — it will re-emerge in various forms until the whole rotten system is overthrown. This is painfully apparent in two of the main fronts in the current anti-feminist backlash — reproductive rights and the family — and gender-based violence.

Reproductive rights & the family

Historically, fascists were notorious for burning books. Now they want to burn contraceptives as well. It was reported in July1 that the Trump administration had decided to incinerate nearly $10 million worth of contraceptives earmarked for USAID programmes in Africa. A State Department official referred to them as “certain abortifacient birth control commodities from terminated Biden-era USAID contracts” because the stocks included IUDs and emergency contraceptives.2 This is connected to the dismantling of USAID — but the reason the Trump administration wanted to burn the contraceptives rather than sell them or give them away is clearly ideological. Blocked by laws in Belgium (where the contraceptives are stored) that prohibit incinerating reusable medical devices, the plan now seems to be to allow them to expire. Planned Parenthood estimates this will lead to 174,000 unintended pregnancies and 56,000 unsafe abortions.

This literal destruction of reproductive rights is going hand in hand with the rise of a reactionary pro-natalism — championed most notoriously by Elon Musk, the slayer of USAID, who has fathered fourteen children with at least four different women. Outside of Musk’s tech bro weirdness, pro-natalism is more usually associated with the valorisation of marriage, the traditional nuclear family and rigid gender roles. It is intrinsically bound up with racism; its raison d’etre is to avoid immigration - the only other way to grow the labour supply.

The “tradwife” phenomenon is part of this. Sophie Lewis3 analyses it as an attempt to escape the “double shift” of paid and unpaid work. Women’s participation in the workforce has meant they end up doing two jobs instead of one, while their wages are swallowed up by housing and childcare costs. People cannot afford to have children until their 30s or 40s and so end up having fewer children or none at all. Parents, especially women, are exhausted by this double shift.

The far right’s response to this crisis of biological and social reproduction under capitalism is to blame it on feminism — just like they blame the housing and cost of living crisis on migrants. They say that a man’s wage used to be able to support the whole family. But now, because of feminism, everyone has to work. So it’s feminism that is destroying families, driving down birth rates and driving up the cost of housing because mortgages are now based on two incomes rather than one.

This narrative exploits a sense among some men that they are being brought down to the level of women or even below — for instance, through the decline of male manual labour and feminisation of professional jobs. Of course, this ignores the fact that women are still significantly poorer than men. The hourly gender pay gap is around ten per cent but the lifetime earnings gap is much wider; women take more time out of the workforce for childcare and are more likely to work part-time. Women also do twice as much housework as men, even when both are working full-time.

Men’s loss of privilege is in no way absolute; it’s just less than it used to be. This sense by men of a loss of privilege relative to women and a desire to reassert that privilege is fuelling the rise of the far right — just like a loss, or perceived loss, of relative superiority among white people is fuelling racism. Right-wing demagogues fan the flames of this fratricidal resentment, identifying it as the perfect way to prevent working class solidarity against the billionaires they represent.

Richard Seymour writes that the “loss of distinction” is experienced by the supporters of the far right as a massive impoverishment, “tantamount to the downfall of civilization”.4 Women or black and brown people doing less badly than white men than they used to might not sound like a good enough reason to burn things down. So conspiracy theories like the “Great Replacement” are required to link it all into one great big imaginary disaster. That’s why the language of the far right is so ludicrously apocalyptic.

The politics of gender-based violence

Lurking barely below the surface of the backlash is the threat of violence. The far right cynically exploits increased concern about gender-based violence to justify pogroms against “military-aged” foreign men. Yet those involved are often perpetrators of violence against women themselves. Half of those arrested recently for racist rioting in the North of Ireland had previously been reported to the police for gender-based violence.5

Reported rates of gender-based violence are on the rise, too. This is partly due to greater awareness post-#MeToo, but the apparent proliferation of sexist attitudes since the 2010s suggests it’s also a real increase. Some studies have found worsening sexist attitudes among young men. For others, it's not so much that young men have become more sexist but that young women have become more progressive.

Research by Women’s Aid has found that 67% of young men hold, or don’t disagree with, traditionalist sexist attitudes about masculinity, compared to 40% of men overall.6 This includes beliefs like: “men who don’t dominate in relationships aren’t real men”; “Men should use violence to get respect if necessary”; “A man’s worth is measured by power and control over others” and “Real men shouldn’t have to care about women’s opinions or feelings”. Feminists often point to the growth of the manosphere as increasing sexist attitudes among young men. A study by Dublin City University7 found that within hours of setting up a social media account more than three-quarters of content recommended to 16-18 year old males on TikTok and YouTube was masculinist, anti-feminist or otherwise extremist. Big tech companies know that people watch extreme content for longer, which means they see more ads and buy more stuff. So the proliferation of the manosphere is directly driven by the attention economy big tech profits from.

Beyond the instinct to rubberneck, something else in the manosphere is appealing to young men. Women’s Aid describes influencers like Andrew Tate as “discuss[ing] themes around traditional masculinity, independence, and resilience”. Part of the reason this resonates is that the economics of late capitalism have robbed young men of autonomy and control over their own lives that would have been taken for granted in previous generations — for instance, being able to move out of their parents’ house. The average age for moving out of home is now 28.8

Men have also lost economic control over women. Increased female participation in the workforce has made women less financially dependent on men, which makes it harder for some men to form or maintain relationships. On top of this, women have more sexual freedom due to changes in attitudes towards sexuality. A Gallup poll last year found that 29% of Gen Z women in the US identified as LGBTQ+ compared to 11% of Gen Z men.9 In this context, manosphere content around working out, physical and emotional strength and dominating over women may give men back a sense of control.

As with reproductive issues, the far right speaks to real issues and anxieties but provides reactionary, sexist solutions: restoring traditional gender roles, returning women to the home, using male violence supposedly to protect us, denying us economic and biological freedom. Instead of addressing real economic causes and providing affordable housing or public childcare, the far right’s “solution” is to restore distinction and division among the working class and leave the class system intact. Ours is to abolish both distinction and the class system by fighting oppression and exploitation at the same time. That is the only way to unite the working class and end the rule of capital.

The backlash to the backlash

After several years when the far right seemed to be growing almost unopposed, there is now a growing backlash to the backlash. In the last year, we have seen renewed movements on gender-based violence, including protests in support of Nikita Hand, marches of thousands on International Women’s Day and smaller marches against the manosphere to the headquarters of social media companies. Women are also to the forefront in countering racism and in the Palestine solidarity movement, including through groups like Mothers against Genocide. An exit poll10 from the General Election last November showed twice as many women as men voted for People Before Profit, with 7% of women voting for the Social Democrats compared to 4% of men.

We can also see signs of a backlash to the backlash in recent positive election results for the left in Ireland and internationally. Catherine Connolly won the Presidential election by the largest ever margin, running on a progressive left platform that opposed imperialism and war, championed the “meitheal”11 and spoke out against the rise in anti-immigration sentiment as “misplaced” “anger … channelled to the wrong people.”12

Die Linke performed unexpectedly well in the German elections in February, running on an economically left, anti-far right platform13 and outpolling Sahra Wagenknecht’s economically left but socially conservative BSW. Hundreds of thousands of people in Britain are signing up to join Your Party and the leftward-moving Greens. Zohran Mamdani has just won the New York mayoral election on a cost-of-living-focused left platform, which included universal free childcare as a core demand and defended trans people’s right to healthcare.14 Rather than deciding “woke is dead” and throwing trans and racialised people under the bus, like some on the left have been tempted into doing, Mamdani’s success showed that it is possible to “bake in” socially progressive politics alongside a “bread and butter” left economic programme. Significantly, in addition to increasing turnout, he flipped 15% of Trump voters into supporting him.15

A notable feature of the backlash years has been a growing political gender divide internationally, from Ireland16 to the US, Europe and South Korea. This can be seen as a problem for the left because we obviously need both men and women to succeed — especially in relation to the global ecological crisis. It’s also a massive opportunity: to recruit more women and redress the historic gender imbalance across most left activist organisations.

There are also reasons to be hopeful that the gender divide is more a case of young women politicised by a decade of feminist movements moving left, than it is of young men moving right; that young men have mostly been more apathetic than radicalised.17 This is important because it means organisation and mobilisation can move young men leftward, like it has young women.

Mamdani’s election is interesting here, bucking the trend by attracting roughly equal support from women and men18 while also winning 81% of LGBTQ+ voters.19 What unites all of these recent left electoral successes is a massive youth vote. Die Linke was the most popular party for 18-24 year olds,20 62% of young voters under 30 chose Mamdani,21 and two-thirds chose Connolly.22 After several years of almost uninterrupted gloom and a seemingly inexorable drift to the far right, there is reason to be hopeful again, if we keep on fighting.

Posted by at No comments:

‘Torture and Degrading Treatment’ – The Case of Dr. Abu Safiya and Gaza’s Broken Medical System



by  | Apr 8, 2026 | 

“Israel must immediately release Gazan doctor Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya,” UN experts said in a recent statement, in unequivocal terms.

Dr. Abu Safiya was “subjected to torture and other cruel and degrading treatment,” they said. His health condition is “dire.”

Many are already familiar with the iconic Palestinian doctor from Gaza. But the deserved and urgent focus on his case should not end with him. Rather, it should illuminate the broader catastrophe afflicting Gaza’s health sector – one deliberately dismantled as part of the ongoing genocide that began on October 7, 2023.

Palestinians and others continue to refer to the genocide as ‘ongoing’. This is not hyperbole. Though the rate of killing by bombs has decreased, the genocide remains in effect because the destruction of Gaza, and of all civilian infrastructure necessary for survival, continues to produce the same outcome: Palestinians are still dying as a direct result of the same policies.

This has affected every aspect of Palestinian life in Gaza that guarantees survival – from water and food to medical care.

Speaking at a WHO press briefing in Cairo on October 8, 2025, Dr. Hanan Balkhy, the World Health Organization’s top regional health official for the Eastern Mediterranean, laid it all on the table.

Though she spoke in institutional terms, outlining Gaza’s urgent healthcare needs, her account confirmed the scale of devastation caused by Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Over 1,700 health workers have been killed in Gaza since the start of the genocide, she said. The majority of Gaza’s hospitals have been destroyed or rendered non-functional, with only a few partially operating. At least 455 Palestinians have died due to hunger, including 151 children, within months.

In all of the grim numbers the Gaza genocide has produced – and continues to produce – one constant stands out: for every growing number of victims, there is a corresponding number of those meant to save them who have also been killed.

Thousands of doctors, health workers, humanitarian workers, civil defense personnel, emergency responders, volunteers, charity workers, and municipal officials have been swept into the same cycle of destruction.

It could be argued that these numbers correspond to the overall scale of death in Gaza. Official figures state that over 72,000 Palestinians have been killed and more than 172,000 wounded, while independent research, including estimates published in The Lancet, suggests the true death toll may be far higher.

This argument may appear defensible. But the targeting of hospitals, the killing and wounding of doctors, and the unlawful detention and torture of health workers cannot be dismissed as a mere reflection of mass killing.

From the earliest days of the genocide, Israel placed Gaza’s hospitals at the center of its assault. On October 17, 2023, Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza was struck in one of the most horrific early massacres, followed by systematic assaults on major medical facilities, including Al-Shifa Hospital, Al-Quds Hospital, the Indonesian Hospital, and Nasser Medical Complex.

But why hospitals? Because hospitals were not only places of treatment. They were places of refuge. As tens of thousands of Palestinians sought shelter within their walls, hospitals became the last spaces where survival was still possible. To destroy them was to sever that final lifeline.

The killing of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, and the detention of medical personnel were not incidental. They formed part of a broader strategy: to render Gaza uninhabitable by dismantling the systems that sustain life.

Deprived of care, stripped of infrastructure, and denied the means to survive, Palestinians were left with fewer options – first to flee south, and ultimately, to be pushed beyond Gaza altogether.

This is why Dr. Abu Safiya has become so vital to this story.

Every Gazan doctor who refused to leave his or her post during the genocide is a hero. Every health worker who risked his or her life to save others represents a model of courage that should be emulated everywhere. And every doctor killed, wounded, or detained deserves to be remembered as the highest expression of human commitment to life.

Dr. Abu Safiya embodies all of them.

He is not unique – and that is precisely the point. He is the collective face of a medical community that refused to abandon its people, even as the system around it collapsed.

At Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, Abu Safiya remained at his post as Israeli forces advanced on the facility, already overwhelmed by waves of wounded and displaced civilians. Despite shortages of fuel, medicine, and staff, he continued to treat patients while helping to protect those sheltering inside the hospital compound.

In the final days before his detention on December 27, 2024, he was among the last senior doctors still operating in the hospital, overseeing care under conditions that defy any conventional understanding of medical practice.

One image came to define him.

Standing amid the ruins outside Kamal Adwan Hospital, surrounded by destruction, he walked alone in his white coat toward advancing Israeli armored vehicles – a lone doctor facing a war machine. The image circulated widely because it captured, in a single frame, the reality of Gaza: those who heal standing unarmed before those who destroy.

That destruction remains in effect today, even as global attention has shifted elsewhere, compounding the danger facing a besieged Gaza. “Israel must release Dr. Abu Safiya and all healthcare workers,” said UN experts. Israel should also release all Palestinian prisoners, lift the siege, and end the genocide in its entirety.

“States have the power to end his torment,” they said. They are not wrong – and there can be no moral or legal justification for their inaction.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His forthcoming book, ‘Before the Flood,’ will be published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include ‘Our Vision for Liberation’, ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
Posted by at No comments:
Are war crimes being committed in the Middle East war?


With US and Israeli strikes on Iran's critical infrastructure already underway Tuesday amid threats of more to come, the UN and other organisations have warned that such attacks could constitute war crimes.


Issued on: 07/04/2026 
By: FRANCE 24

A bridge struck by U.S. airstrikes on Thursday is seen in the town of Karaj, west of Tehran, Iran, Friday, April 3, 2026. © Vahid Salemi, AP

A war crime is a serious violation of international humanitarian law during times of conflict.

But "not all violations committed during war are legally considered war crimes," the Geneva-based NGO Trial International explains on its website, stressing that "to qualify, they must fulfil certain criteria of purpose and gravity".

War crimes are primarily defined by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, as well as by the 1998 Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the world's only permanent court for prosecuting war crimes – the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Article 8 of the Rome Statute sets out dozens of examples which could be considered a war crime.

They include wilful killing, torture, taking hostages and intentionally attacking civilians.

Also on the list are intentional "attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives".

Article 54 of the first additional protocol of the Geneva Conventions meanwhile emphasises that it is "prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population", including "crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works".

Situation in Middle East?

Civilian infrastructure, including power and desalination plants, have been repeatedly hit in the conflict that began when the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

Trump ramped up his rhetoric towards Iran on Monday, vowing to carry out the "complete demolition" of Iran's critical infrastructure, particularly bridges and power plants if a deal was not reached by late Tuesday.

But hours before the deadline, Israel said it had already completed a broad wave of strikes targeting "infrastructure sites" across Iran.

Writing on Truth Social, Trump stated that "a whole civilisation will die tonight" if the country does not heed his call for a deal.

Without mentioning Trump by name, United Nations rights chief Volker Turk on Tuesday slammed the "incendiary rhetoric" expressed during the war as "sickening".

"Under international law, deliberately attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime," Turk said, insisting that "anyone responsible for international crimes must be held to account by a competent court."

Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, also stressed that "civilian infrastructure, including energy infrastructure, may not be attacked".

Even in cases where "specific civilian infrastructure were to qualify as a military objective, international humanitarian law would still prohibit attacks against them if they (were) expected to cause excessive incidental civilian harm," he warned.

Mirjana Spoljaric, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, denounced on Monday "deliberate threats, whether in rhetoric or in action, against essential civilian infrastructure".

Who prosecutes war crimes?

Trial International points out that "unlike other human rights violations, war crimes do not engage state responsibility but individual criminal responsibility".

Domestic courts are typically responsible for prosecuting war crimes. However, this can prove impossible during or in the aftermath of conflicts.

In such cases, one option can be universal jurisdiction, which allows countries to prosecute the most serious international crimes regardless of where they were committed.

International courts may also have jurisdiction, including the ICC.

Cases can be referred to the ICC by a country that has signed up to the Rome treaty or whose citizens have been the victims of crimes.

Cases may also be referred by the UN Security Council. A non-member state can also agree to accept the court's jurisdiction.

Neither the United States, Israel nor Iran are state parties to the Rome Statute.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
Posted by at No comments:
French arms exports to Israel ‘a continuous pipeline of military hardware’

ANALYSIS


Throughout the war in Gaza, France maintained that its exports of military equipment to Israel were solely for defensive purposes or intended for re-export to other countries. A new report by two pro-Palestinian groups argues that French firms and transport hubs have continued to arm Israel’s military operations “through supply chains that have bypassed public scrutiny”.


Issued on: 08/04/2026 - 
FRANCE24
By: Benjamin DODMAN


French electronics firm Sermat has been ordered to halt exports of components used for Israeli drones such as the Hermes 900, built by Elbit Systems. © Jack Guez, AFP

In October last year, French customs agents paid a surprise visit to the headquarters of Sermat, an electronics firm based on the edge of Paris. Its purpose was to investigate the company’s dealings with Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems, the country’s leading arms manufacturer.

A day earlier, customs at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport, France’s main hub, had blocked an Israeli-bound shipment of Sermat’s alternators – electric generators used by Elbit Systems to equip drones that have been widely deployed by the Israeli army in Gaza.

The rare move came just days after investigative website Disclose revealed that Sermat had also supplied Elbit Systems with electric motors fitted onto Israeli drones – including the Hermes 450 unmanned aircraft that was involved in the fatal killing of humanitarian workers for the NGO World Central Kitchen in April 2024.

Following those revelations, the French government moved swiftly – and discreetly – to ban all exports of Sermat products to Israel. The ban, Disclose wrote at the time, amounted to an admission that “there is a real risk of exported components being used in the bombardments” that have now killed more than 72,000 people in the war-ravaged Gaza Strip, according to health officials.
‘Defensive systems’

Since the early months of the Gaza War, France has repeatedly stated that it does not export lethal military equipment liable to be used in the Palestinian territory – a stance recently reiterated by Catherine Vautrin, the French minister for the armed forces and veterans.

In a social media post on April 4, Vautrin stressed that French military exports to Israel were limited to components for “defensive systems designed to protect civilians”, such as Israel’s Iron Dome, or authorised shipments intended for weapons to be assembled in Israel and then exported to other countries.

But critics argue that the line between defensive and offensive uses is often blurry, and that French authorities have no control over the components once they have been sold. In Sermat’s case, Disclose pointed to loopholes in export rules, noting that the company’s contracts with Elbit Systems originally involved the equipment of unarmed surveillance drones – and was therefore exempt from the “dual-use” classification that involves more stringent controls.

© France 24
01:55


Sermat is among more than a dozen French firms cited in a report published on Tuesday by pro-Palestinian advocacy groups Urgence Palestine and People’s Embargo for Palestine. Titled “Exposing French military shipments to Israel”, the 66-page report details the steady flow of French-made equipment that has continued to supply Israel’s military industry throughout the Gaza War.

Compiled from open-source export data, it charts “more than 525 shipments of military goods (that) have been shipped from French manufacturers to Israeli defence and aerospace industries” between October 2023 and March 2026.

Goods include “actuators, optical components, and batteries for avionics and ground systems; ammunition links for rifles and machine guns; as well as sensors for armored vehicles and forgings for artillery systems”. Though none of the components constitute lethal weapons that are ready for use, the report says they “represent a continuous pipeline of military hardware to Israel, directly facilitating the technical infrastructure of its assaults”.

Contacted by FRANCE 24, the French finance ministry did not wish to comment on the report, while the defence ministry referred to Vautrin’s social media post. The French government has taken steps to dissolve Urgence Palestine for “inciting hatred”, in a move criticised by several human rights experts appointed by the UN.


‘Bypassing public scrutiny’

The report by Urgence Palestine and People’s Embargo for Palestine also details the important role played by French airports and seaports as transport hubs for military shipments to Israel, notably from the US. It states that the FedEx hub at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle handled 117 shipments carrying Lockheed Martin components that are crucial to the maintenance and repair of Israel’s fleet of F-35 jets.

“As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), and the Genocide Convention, France is legally and morally bound to ensure that its industrial and state exports do not facilitate serious violations of international law,” the report concludes, adding that the evidence suggests “these obligations have been breached through supply chains that have bypassed public scrutiny”.

As early as January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) warned of the “risk” of genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. Last September, a UN human rights commission concluded that the risk had become reality, adding that the international community was under the “legal obligation to use all means that are reasonably available to them to stop the genocide in Gaza”.

Some European countries have heeded such calls, with Spain and Belgium notably enacting arms embargos on Israel. The Spanish government has also banned the use of its ports and airports for exports of weapons, dual-use technology and military equipment to Israel.

Docker protests

Elsewhere, most notably in Italy, dock workers have taken matters into their own hands, sometimes refusing to load military equipment onto ships bound for Israel.

© France 24
02:18


In June last year, mirroring earlier protests in Genoa, Salerno and Ravenna, dockers in the French port of Fos-sur-Mer refused to load crates of links used in machine guns aboard a cargo vessel bound for the Israeli port of Haifa. It came days after another investigation by Disclose revealed that the port near Marseille was a key link in the secretive export of spare parts for machine guns.

The links manufactured by local company Eurolinks are small metal pieces used to connect machine gun bullets and allowing rapid bursts of fire. Rights groups say they have likely been used against civilians in the Gaza Strip, including in the February 24, 2024 “Flour Massacre” in which hundreds of Palestinians were killed or injured as they sought food from aid trucks.

Sébastien Lecornu, then France’s defence minister and the current prime minister, stated at the time that the export licence granted to Eurolinks “relates solely to re-export” and “does not entitle the Israeli army to use these components”. He did not elaborate on whether and how the French authorities sought to enforce the terms of the licence in Israel.

French arms manufacturers contacted by Disclose and Le Monde have offered similar answers, suggesting it was up to their Israeli clients to abide by French export rules.

Defence ties between the two countries have cooled sharply since the start of the Gaza War, with Paris taking an increasingly critical line toward Israel and at one point banning Israeli firms from a major arms fair.

According to a parliamentary report published last year, France authorised more than 200 dual-use export licences to Israel in 2024 worth €76.5 million – a 60% decrease from the previous year. Those figures look set for an even sharper drop next year – though not at France’s initiative.

The Israeli defence ministry announced last week it would stop all defence procurement from France, accusing Paris of a hostile stance. The ministry said it would instead rely on the local defence industry and suppliers in “friendly” countries.

Analysts, however, suggest the announcement had more to do with heated rhetoric than a substantial policy shift, noting that existing contracts are expected to be honoured and that private companies may still pursue deals.

Serbia Poised To Produce Drones With Israeli Arms Giant Involved In Gaza – Analysis

Hermes 900, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed for tactical missions that Elbit sold to Serbia, displayed at a military parade in Belgrade on October 20, 2025.
 Photo: BIRN/Sasa Dragojlo


April 8, 2026 
 Balkan Insight
By Sasa Dragojlo and Avi Scharf

In early March, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic announced the imminent opening of a drone factory. “For serious drones,” he said. “The most serious in the world.”

Vucic said the factory would be a joint venture between two partners and might be ready in April, but he didn’t specify with whom Serbia was partnering. The answer might prove unsavoury for some.

BIRN and Haaretz can reveal that the factory will be co-owned by top Israeli Elbit Systems and Serbia’s main state-owned import-export company, SDPR – with the Israeli partner having a majority state of 51 per cent.


In a June 2025 report, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese named Elbit Systems among a number of companies profiting from “the ongoing genocide” in Gaza, where more than 70,000 Palestinians have died in Israeli military operations since the October 2023 attack on Israel by the militant group Hamas.

According to official documents obtained by BIRN/Haaretz and two independent sources, Elbit and SDPR plan to produce two types of drones for short- and long-range missions.

The partnership arguably takes defence ties between the two countries to a new level; the value of Serbian arms exports to Israel has already skyrocketed 42-fold since 2023, reaching 114 million euros last year. Most of those exports were carried out by SDPR.

Serbia stands to benefit financially from the drone joint venture and from the transfer of technology and knowledge from one of the most advanced arms companies in the world, said Vuk Vuksanovic, foreign policy lecturer in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Israel, on the other hand, is keen to secure a military supply chain outside its immediate region, “which is constantly in a conflict zone”, he told BIRN.

On a geopolitical level, Vuksanovic said Serbia’s ruling elite has come to see Israel as a “shortcut to the White House”, at a time of growing popular dissatisfaction with Vucic and the ruling Progressive Party after 14 years in power.

“The Serbian ruling party’s main priority now is staying in power and in order to achieve that it is best not to anger the Americans, especially in the context of recent Trump moves in the global arena,” he said.

SDPR did not respond to questions from BIRN, while Elbit Systems only replied: “No comment.”

‘Omnipresent killing machines’

The plan for the project, according to documents reviewed by BIRN and corroborated by two independent sources close to the Serbian arms industry, is to produce two types of drones – a rotary-wing model capable of carrying heavy payloads of ammunition on short-range missions and a more sophisticated, long-range drone capable of flying at altitudes of up to 6,000 metres.

One source said the long-range drone is “more advanced” than the Serbian-produced Pegasus. “It has a higher flight altitude and greater operational autonomy,” the source told BIRN on condition of anonymity. “That’s the essence, because we can’t achieve that ourselves.”

“The general idea is the transfer of technology, because Serbian engineers will be working on it as well, and that drone is the crown of the whole story.”

According to one source, engineers from the Serbian aircraft company UTVA, owned by SDPR, will be also involved in the project.

Albanese’s report, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, mentions drones developed and supplied by Elbit Systems and another Israeli company as flying alongside the Israeli fighter jets that have been bombing Gaza. The drones, she wrote, provide surveillance of Palestinians and intelligence on targets.

With the support of these companies and collaboration with institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, wrote Albanese, “drones used by Israel acquired automated weapons systems and the ability to fly in swarm formation”.

“Drones, hexacopters and quadcopters have also been omnipresent killing machines in the skies of Gaza,” she declared.

Albanese identified Elbit System as among those companies that “contribute to producing the tools for surveillance, crowd control, urban warfare, facial recognition and targeted killing, tools that are effectively tested on Palestinians”.

Israel has dismissed allegations of genocide.

The documents obtained by BIRN reveal it was initially planned for the drone factory to be potentially located in the industrial zone of Simanovci, about 30 kilometres west of the capital, Belgrade, in a facility owned by the Pink Media group, the company of pro-government Serbian media tycoon Zeljko Mitrovic.

However, following publication of the article, Pink Media Group denied that the factory will be located there. “This information is completely false. Neither Zeljko Mitrovic nor Pink Media Group have anything to do with this project. He hasn’t participated, nor is he participating in any talks, negotiations, deals or arrangements related to this drone factory,” the company stated, adding that no company linked to Mitrovic also had any role in the project.

Reputational risk

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, which tracks the global trade in arms, Elbit Systems is Israel’s No. 1 defence contractor, operating in fields including aerospace, land and naval command and control, communications, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.

In March, The Jerusalem Post reported that Elbit Systems is now the biggest Israeli firm by market value listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. It has a string of major contracts with the Israeli state and has already done business with Serbia.

Early last year, Elbit Systems sold Serbia advanced artillery systems and drones worth $335 million. In August, another deal valued at $1.6 billion was signed for the delivery of drones, long-range missiles, electronic warfare systems, and other military equipment to Belgrade. The same month, BIRN reported that the Belgrade-based company Edepro – which describes itself as a “regional leader in propulsion system solutions” for rockets, drones, and missiles – had exported goods to IMI Systems, which is owned by Elbit Systems since 2018.

Its role in Gaza has given other state pause. Citing an official document, Agence France-Presse, AFP, reported in September last year that Spain had cancelled a contract worth some 700 million euros for the purchase of Elbit’s multiple rocket launcher system after the government announced a ban on military equipment sales or purchases with Israel over its Gaza offensive.

Last month, a group calling itself The Earthquake Faction claimed responsibility for a fire at a factory belonging to Czech LPP Holding, which has announced in 2023 that it would partner with Elbit in developing drones. The group said its aim was to disrupt Israeli operations in Gaza.

Such setbacks have not stopped Elbit Systems from posting revenues last year of $7.9 billion, 16.3 per cent up on 2024, boosted further by the US-Israeli attack on Iran.

Visiting in Serbia in March, Albanese described the Balkan country as “one of Israel’s strongest and most determined allies, without any shame”. In response, Serbia’s foreign ministry called her remarks “inappropriate”.
Issues even before Gaza war

In 2009, Norway’s government announced it had excluded Elbit Systems from investment by Government Pension Fund based on a recommendation by the Fund’s Council on Ethics over Elbit’s supplying of surveillance systems for a separation barrier in the West Bank. “We do not wish to fund companies that so directly contribute to violations of international humanitarian law,” said Kristin Halvorsen, Norway’s then finance minister.

In January 2010, Danske Bank added Elbit to a list of companies that it said failed its Socially Responsible Investment policy; two months later, a Swedish pension fund also boycotted the firm for its involvement in the construction of the West Bank barrier, which a 2004 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice said contravened international law.

In 2014, one of Denmark’s largest pension fund administrators, PKA Ltd, announced it would no longer consider investing in Elbit, citing the same reasons.

And in 2018, British bank HSBC divested from Elbit following the Israeli firm’s acquisition of IMI Systems. HSBC cited IMI’s production of cluster bombs.


Balkan Insight

The Balkan Insight (formerly the Balkin Investigative Reporting Network, BIRN) is a close group of editors and trainers that enables journalists in the region to produce in-depth analytical and investigative journalism on complex political, economic and social themes. BIRN emerged from the Balkan programme of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, IWPR, in 2005. The original IWPR Balkans team was mandated to localise that programme and make it sustainable, in light of changing realities in the region and the maturity of the IWPR intervention. Since then, its work in publishing, media training and public debate activities has become synonymous with quality, reliability and impartiality. A fully-independent and local network, it is now developing as an efficient and self-sustainable regional institution to enhance the capacity for journalism that pushes for public debate on European-oriented political and economic reform.
Posted by at No comments:

'Speaking helps us heal' says Rwandan survivor on genocide anniversary

Rwanda on Tuesday began its annual commemoration of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis – a period of remembrance for the victims and reflection on the legacy of the killings. For survivor Godelieve Mukasarasi, that past has shaped more than three decades of work helping women who were raped during the genocide, and children born of sexual violence, to rebuild their lives.


Issued on: 07/04/2026 - RFI

Portraits of children displayed as part of a Red Cross tracing campaign launched after the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, which sought to reunite families separated by the violence. AFP - FABRICE COFFRINI

More than 800,000 people, mainly ethnic Tutsis, were killed in about 100 days after the assassination of president Juvénal Habyarimana on 6 April 1994, which followed years of ethnic tension. The genocide has left deep scars across Rwanda, destroying families, communities and social bonds.

Sexual violence was used on a vast scale, leaving many women traumatised and many children born of rape facing stigma and rejection. Around 70 percent of the population was born after the genocide, but its impact is still felt in families, in collective memory and through national commemorations.

Mukasarasi is a Hutu woman whose Tutsi husband and one of her children were killed during the genocide, which also targeted moderate Hutus amid long-standing ethnic divisions. She was also raped. In the years since, Mukasarasi founded the non-profit Sevota, which has supported more than 1,000 women and children.

In a new book, La Réparatrice, co-written with French journalist Capucine Graby, Mukasarasi shares her story and describes her work. Mukasarasi tells RFI that recovery is not only about justice, but also about restoring dignity and memory.

RFI: Why did you choose the title La Réparatrice (The Repairer) for your book?

Godelieve Mukasarasi: Because it reflects the role I gave myself after the genocide. There were shattered lives, destroyed social bonds and invisible wounds among survivors.

I do not see myself only as a victim, but as someone who helps rebuild dignity and Rwanda’s collective memory. I committed myself to preserving the memory of the genocide by giving survivors a voice and refusing to let it be forgotten.

For me, the title symbolises my role in reconciliation and in justice that helps repair. It is also about repairing what cannot be seen. The book focuses on psychological and social wounds that are invisible but need just as much care as physical injuries.

The word “repairer” goes beyond Rwanda. It speaks to women’s resilience in the face of war violence around the world. It raises the question of whether societies can recover from collective trauma. It embodies the idea that repair is not only judicial, but also human, social and spiritual – for women, for children, for the fabric of communities and for the memory shattered by genocide.

RFI: Through Sevota you have supported more than 1,000 women who were raped, and children born of rape. Is speaking out central to the rebuilding process for you?

GM: Survivors were silenced by shame, fear or stigma. Giving them a space where they can speak freely, be heard and be recognised is already a form of healing. Speech becomes a tool of liberation. Expressing what they went through helps them regain control of their own story. It is also an act of memory and transmission.

What we do is both therapeutic and political. We give a voice back to those who were silenced and ensure their stories become part of a collective memory that refuses erasure. In our spaces, other forms of expression also help, such as prayer, songs, poetry and theatre. Working on trauma through the body can be a gentler approach, because speaking can sometimes trigger painful memories.

We also focus on economic recovery. Poverty and precarity play an important role in psychological stability, so we introduced income-generating activities to help women become more independent. Accepting yourself as a survivor, and accepting a child born of violence, is very difficult. The women even created a song saying their children are beautiful.

Rwanda marks 1994 genocide amid tensions over M23 rebellion in DRC

RFI: As a woman and a mother in a survivor family, what gives you the strength to support others?

GM: When I created Sevota, it was a promise I made during the genocide, when people came to kill my children and my husband. In my prayer, I said that if my children survived, I would create this work. My strength comes from transforming my pain into action – that is already an inner victory. I refused to let suffering define my life.

When I met other survivors, I saw that shared pain can become a bond. I feel memory turning into a future, and their courage feeds mine. I know my story can inspire others, and I carry the responsibility of showing that it is possible to rise again.

Each time I see a young person born of violence succeed, each time a mother accepts and embraces her child, each time she dares to dream of a better future, then we are standing. Standing for dignity, for solidarity and for hope. Because if we survived, it is to live. And if we live, it is to give the world a testimony of resilience and love.
Godelieve Mukasarasi, founder of Sevota, has spent decades supporting women raped during the genocide and children born of sexual violence. @Archives SEVOTA


RFI: You have supported what you call “children born of chance” – children born of sexual violence, often rejected and long stigmatised. You say their image has changed. How?

GM: In the past, these children were seen very negatively. They were called children of misfortune, children of the bush, mixed children like their fathers, even traitors, and so on. Today, thanks to support, that image has changed in many ways.

They are now seen as innocent children. They are no longer defined only by the circumstances of their birth, but by their talents, ambitions and achievements. Their image has moved from stigmatised victims to young people who carry the future.

RFI: More than 30 years after the genocide, how is trauma passed on in Rwandan society, when most of the population was born after it?

GM: Trauma is now passed on across generations. Young people still carry indirect effects of what their mothers and society lived through. Some parents still suffer from post-traumatic stress and can pass on anxiety, depression and relationship difficulties to their children.

Rwanda has built a strong model of remembrance, with annual commemorations, museums and NGOs like Ibuka [an umbrella organisation representing genocide survivors] that keep the memory alive. This is very important to prevent another genocide. But young people born afterwards must still deal with a past they did not experience.

Psychologists say they need support from trained teachers, therapists and institutions to help turn this trauma into constructive memory rather than a psychological burden.

Court weighs survivors' claim that French troops stood by during Rwanda genocide

RFI: In your book, you mention the Pelicot trial in France after the repeated rapes suffered by Gisèle Pelicot while she was drugged. You describe it as a turning point. What did that trial mean to you?

GM: That trial was seen as a real turning point. It marked a change in how French and international society deals with sexual violence, especially crimes committed under chemical submission. It strongly echoed our own struggle for recognition of victims and against impunity.

It highlighted forms of violence that are often invisible and minimised. This echoes what many women in Rwanda, and also in Syria and elsewhere, experienced during and after the genocide, often in silence.

RFI: What are your ongoing projects with Sevota in Rwanda?

GM: We are building a peace institute. It will include training, education and meeting spaces, as well as rooms for vocational learning for young people and for medical consultations. There will also be a museum dedicated to women who testified at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

And there will be a garden of memory and gratitude called the Garden of the Righteous of Humanity, in Kamonyi [a district in southern Rwanda where massacres took place]. It will be used especially to educate young people about the genocide against the Tutsis in 1994, but also about other genocides.

This interview has been adapted from an audio version in French by and lightly edited for clarity.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)