Showing posts sorted by date for query PROJECT 2025. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query PROJECT 2025. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, August 10, 2026

 

Harry Potter fans force cable diversion of multimillion pipeline project to protect Dobby’s ‘grave’

Harry Potter fans force diversion of UK-Ireland cable to protect 'Dobby's grave'
Copyright Platform 9¾ Facebook screenshots - Warner Bros. Pictures


By David Mouriquand
Published on

It has been revealed that Harry Potter fans succeeded in diverting a multimillion-pound power link between the UK and Ireland after they pointed out the project would disturb a memorial to Dobby the House Elf.

To (mis)crib from Professor McGonagall's rallying cry: "Piertotum Locomotor! Dobby's grave is threatened!"

A £430 million (€502m) over-and-undersea cable project between Britain and Ireland has been rerouted after Harry Potter fans discovered the original plan would have disturbed a shrine to the fictional character Dobby the House Elf.

The 190km-Greenlink high-voltage cable, to supply energy from Britain to Ireland, was supposed to be laid between County Wexford in Ireland and Freshwater West beach in Pembrokeshire, Wales. It's on that beach where Dobby's death scene in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows – Part One (2010) was filmed.

Since then, the beach has become popular with fans, who erected a shrine to Dobby and started leaving painted stones and socks as a tribute to the fallen hero.

The National Trust – Europe's largest conservation charity - agreed the shrine could remain in place in 2022, but had urged fans not to leave socks behind for environmental reasons.

When learning that the Greenlink project would go through Dobby's memorial, fans revolted.

In an interview on The Energy Revolution podcast released last Wednesday, Simon Ludlam, chief executive of advisory firm Etchea Energy, explained how the plans led to "hundreds of calls" from furious Harry Potter fans.

“He is a fictitious character in a fictitious book, the whole thing's fictitious, what are you talking about?” Ludlam asked one of his colleagues, who informed him about the outcry and who insisted that the matter was “very, very serious”.

“So we got back with the planners and discussed exactly how to reroute the cable so we wouldn't go anymore into Dobby's grave,” Ludlam explained. “And a lot of people were very happy about that and, you know, the project's now going and Dobby's happy.”

The project went live in 2025 and can now power 380,000 homes. Without desecrating Dobby's grave. Wands down.

 

The Jason Arday controversy: Explaining the University of Cambridge scandal rocking British academia

The Jason Arday controversy: Explaining the scandal rocking British academia
Copyright St Mary's University Twickenham screenshot

By David Mouriquand
Published on

A high-profile plagiarism row has led to one of the biggest academic scandals in the UK's history. It centers on Professor Jason Arday, the new poster boy in an ongoing culture war centered around "wokeness" and DEI. His controversial memoir is set to published later this month.

It's the scandal rocking the highest spheres of British academia, one involving plagiarism allegations, fantastical claims, and not only the downfall of a supposed prodigy but a scathing indictment of one of the UK's most prestigious educational institutions.

It all centers on Jason Arday, a professor of sociology of education who has resigned from his post at the University of Cambridge after the university launched an inquiry into his "academic qualifications and honorary appointments".

A university statement said: “The University of Cambridge has begun an investigation following new information about Professor Arday’s academic qualifications and honorary appointments. In order to ensure a fair process, we will not comment further until this has concluded."

The statement added: “Separately, there remains a number of ongoing complaints regarding academic misconduct, which are being handled in line with our misconduct in research policy.”

The scandal has brought into question Cambridge's hiring policies, with many exploiting Arday's story as a means to stoke the flames of culture war regarding representation and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives. No doubt these heated debates will continue, as Arday's planned memoir, "Great And Unfortunate Things", co-authored with Eve Claxton, is set to be published in the UK on 27 August – despite the ongoing controversies.

Who is Jason Arday?

Born Jason Atta Kwei Arday on 9 May 1985 to parents orginally from Ghana who lived on a Clapham council housing estate, Jason Arday is the British academic who received a PhD from Liverpool John Moores University in 2015.

He supposedly taught sociology at both Durham University and the University of Glasgow, before publishing papers on critical race theory, racism in the British education sector and his experiences with neurodivergence.

In 2023, at the age of 37, he became the University of Cambridge's youngest Black professor and a Fellow of Jesus College.

At the time, they proudly declared that he was the 800-year-old institution’s “youngest Black person ever appointed to a professorship”, joining only five other Black professors at Cambridge.

Bhaskar Vira, the university's pro-vice-chancellor for education, called Arday "an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education", adding that he would "contribute significantly to Cambridge's research in this area and to addressing the under-representation of people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those from Black, Asian, and other minority ethnic communities..."

Vira added at the time: "His experiences highlight the barriers faced by many under-represented groups across higher education and especially at leading universities. Cambridge has a responsibility to do everything it can to address this by creating academic spaces where everyone feels they belong."

After being appointed a professor of sociology and education, media coverage ensued. Arday made television appearances, was awarded several honorary doctorates, and benefitted from positive attention that led many to consider him a "superstar academic".

However, with his new prestigious status as an academic pioneer came increased scrutiny over Arday's background and credentials.

Too good to be true?

A few weeks ago came serious allegations of academic misconduct, with initial accusations of potential plagiarism.

In April of this year, Arday delivered a keynote speech at the British Sociological Association, in which he argued that white conservative and right-wing activists used a "playbook" to target Black academics. He called this a "cancer" that his peers should "eradicate from academia".

The allegations of Arday's plagiarism were then made public in July.

A Substack post by Nathan Cofnas, a philosopher at the University of Ghent and a self-defined “race realist” who was fired by Cambridge’s Emmanuel College in 2024, claimed that Arday's PhD thesis, titled “An exploration of peer-monitoring among student teachers’ to inform reflective practice within the context of action research”, was plagiarized after having been put through plagiarism detection software.

The Telegraph reported that analysis had found more than 100 passages in his PhD were similar to another thesis by Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, a student at Brunel University in London, published six years earlier.

In their article, titled "Cambridge’s diversity poster boy in plagiarism row", the Telegraph cited Dave Harris, emeritus professor at Plymouth Marjon University, who had alerted Cambridge and Liverpool John Moores Universities to his concerns about plagiarism in 2023. He is quoted as saying: “In my opinion, important sections of the work of Professor Jason Arday, both his PhD thesis and some subsequent published articles, solo and jointly written, seem to display indications of serious plagiarism. I can think of no other plausible explanation for what I have read."

When these allegations were raised, a backlash started, with the University of Cambridge initially saying that those raising concerns about Arday's academic integrity were doing so for racist motives.

Cambridge said Arday had been the victim of a “vile campaign to undermine his credibility”.

Further complicating things were reports that a Times Higher Education reporter Jack Grove had previously investigated Arday's alleged plagiarism, assembling a report in September 2025. He contacted Arday for a comment, and Arday responded with a legal letter from the firm Carter-Ruck. The Times Higher Education did not publish the story.

It turns out that Arday also made a complaint about Grove to London's Metropolitan Police, which started a four-month-long investigation into the journalist.

Mark Rowley, Met Commissioner, later acknowledged that they had "dropped the ball" and that the complaint about Grove should have been "screened out earlier on as not requiring investigation".

This investigation into a journalist who was only seeking a right of reply brought criticism on social media that the UK were under some sort of "police state" and that the Met were to be held accountable for such action.

Further allegations then came to light regarding Arday's backstory...

Jason Arday carries the Olympic Flame on the Torch Relay leg between Sutton and Merton, in London - 23 July 2012
Jason Arday carries the Olympic Flame on the Torch Relay leg between Sutton and Merton, in London - 23 July 2012 Joe Giddens/LOCOG/PA via AP

More tall tales?

From plagiarism to fabulism...

On 1 August, The Guardian published its own investigation by Lanre Bakare, highlighting wider discrepancies in claims Arday had made about his life. His story is to be detailed in a memoir for Simon & Schuster, still set to be published later this month.

Details reportedly include that Arday was diagnosed with autism at the age of three; that he was non-verbal until the age of 11; that he was unable to read or write until 18; that he ran 600 miles in six days – soemthing which would make him one of the greatest long-distance runners and endurance athletes in the world; and that he claimed to have raised more than £5 million for charities by running 30 marathons in 35 days – including nine marathons with a hairline fracture in a fibula.

When asked by The Guardian about the £5m figure, Arday clarified that the money was raised with the help of “many fundraising collectives over a two-decade period”.

Arday also claimed that he received online abuse following his appointment at Cambridge, and that an armed masked man had come to his work and threatened him. An investigation by The Guardian found that there was no evidence of this intruder on CCTV and that no other staff had reported seeing the figure.

Arday also claimed that a pig's head had been sent to his parents' South London home. He stated that the Metropolitan Police had identified the butchers' shop from which the pig had been purchased. However, The Guardian found no supporting evidence of these claims and the Met denied that an inquiry had taken place.

Many have raised concerns that these stories are tall tales, and when Bakare challenged Arday on a lack of evidence for some of his claims, Arday said: "To be honest with you, I thought you'd just believe me. Why would I lie?"

His memoir, "Great And Unfortunate Things”, details his “improbable triumphs and heart-breaking setbacks”, according to publicity material for the book. Scrutiny regarding his impressive achievements has reportedly led some stories to be amended or even deleted from the biography.

In an interview with The Times, Arday has further denied claims of lying, saying: “We’re talking about academia here. I didn’t murder somebody. I think the cruelty that I’ve experienced and the positioning of me as this kind of liar and fantasist is totally unacceptable.”

What now?

In a resignation letter published on 5 August on the Good Law Project’s website, Arday said: “While criticism is an inevitable part of academic life, what I have experienced has gone far beyond scholarly disagreement."

“The relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary have taken a profound toll on me and on those I love.”

He added that the “only way to bring this chapter to an end” was to step away, writing: “This decision should not be interpreted as a loss of faith in scholarship or in the values that first brought me to Cambridge. Nor should it be mistaken for an acceptance of the narratives that have surrounded me. It is simply the decision of someone who has reached the limits of what any person should reasonably be expected to endure.”

“The response from so many people across the world was overwhelming. Thousands celebrated not simply my appointment, but what it represented: that talent, perseverance and hope can triumph over even the greatest adversity.”

Arday concluded his letter by saying he needed “time to heal."

"I need time to simply be myself again. And when that time comes, I will return."

Making things worse for Arday are reports by The Times, which used detection software that suggested that the resignation letter had been written using artificial intelligence.

The most recent development has been Arday cancelling several events planned in his book tour, including an event in Edinburgh and a "fireside chat" at the Royal Geographical Society.

Who is to blame?

As to be expected, Arday's fall from grace has led rightwing media outlets and commentators to pile-on and exploit his story, making him their poster boy in an ongoing culture war centered around "wokeness" and DEI. It has also led many to cry out that leftist media outlets and figures were too quick to dismiss credible concerns regarding Arday.

The bulk of the blame so far has been aimed at Cambridge University, a historic institution which has been routinely criticised for its track record when it comes to diversity.

Questions of judgement and appropriate screening processes have arisen, with an ongoing accusation that Arday may have been fast-tracked so that the university could capitalise on his image.

A joint letter, led by senior academics including Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, has demanded an independent investigation into how Arday had been appointed in the first place, suggesting that he had been employed by those seeking a "quick fix" for their perceived diversity issues. The letter also expressed concern that the scandal would "set back the modest progress Cambridge has made in addressing historical underrepresentation".

In a statement released last Friday, Cambridge confirmed: "The university will continue to investigate the circumstances around Jason Arday’s appointment and tenure."

It added: “The findings will feed into a review of the process for the appointment of senior academic roles. In addition, and as previously stated, the university’s Research Policy Committee will review the misconduct in research policy."

As of writing, Arday continues to claim he has done nothing wrong.

Is he a liar and fantasist who duped the system with falsehoods and a story of triumph over adversity which many were all too keen to lap up? Or is he a victim of that very same system which has led to an ambitious man being caught in the crossfire of the agendas of both liberal types who have exploited him and far-right figures guilty of scapegoating him?

Both things can be true at the same time. What is clear is that this ongoing scandal defies simplistic mudslinging, with all parties sharing responsibility for the reverberations Arday's story will have on Black academics and the reputation of UK higher education.

Jason Arday's memoir, "Great And Unfortunate Things", is still to be published in the UK on 27 August.

 

Source: Foreign Policy In Focus

On the night of July 30, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that his newly minted “Board of Peace” had reached what he termed a historic agreement for the complete disarmament of Hamas and every other armed group in Gaza. He hailed it as a “critical step” toward a new Palestinian government that would work closely with the board.

Read that arrangement for what it actually is. The new Palestinian government is defined, in the very same breath that announces it, by its institutional subordination to a body chaired for life by an American president. That is not the grammar of sovereignty. It is the language of colonial guardianship, repackaged for the twenty-first century.

Two crucial realities were conspicuously omitted from the announcement. First, Israel has not accepted the roadmap. Second, Palestinian factions maintain that no weapons will be surrendered until an unconditional Israeli military withdrawal is guaranteed. Consequently, the deal remains, for now, a paper document rather than a fact on the ground. But the document itself is the point. Whether or not it is ever implemented, its terms lay bare what Palestinians are expected to swallow, and what fundamental rights they must forfeit to buy a momentary pause in the slaughter.

The mechanics detailed in the roadmap are explicit. Hamas is required to hand its weapons—starting with tunnels, depots, and heavy arms—to a Palestinian national committee operating under international verification. An International Stabilization Force of roughly 5,000 troops, placed under the command of an American general, would position itself between Palestinians and withdrawing Israeli units while training a newly recruited police force from scratch.

Civil administration would pass to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, a technocratic body designed with no place for Hamas and zero electoral origin. Its appointed head, Ali Shaath, is a former Palestinian Authority official installed from above. At no point in this sequence does the Palestinian public choose who governs them.

Compare this with the failed bargains of the past. The Oslo and Camp David frameworks failed Palestinians in nearly every conceivable way, and the state they promised never materialized. But even those flawed frameworks explicitly named statehood as the destination. The core formula was “concede now, receive a state later.” The concession was extracted, the state was withheld, and that systemic betrayal became the central wound of the last three decades.

What is entirely unprecedented in 2026 is that the destination has been deliberately struck from the text. The roadmap is meticulous about weapons, verification timelines, and the 200-300 days that demilitarization is expected to take. On Palestinian statehood, it is utterly silent. A plan that specifies precisely how an occupied people must disarm while remaining mute on what they are disarming toward has answered the question by refusing to ask it.

An administered territory is not a state in waiting. It is a protectorate with polished branding. The committee running Gaza answers upward to an external board, never downward to the people of Gaza. Its reconstruction funds flow through a financial vehicle controlled by that same board, whose charter allows any government to buy a permanent seat for a billion dollars in cash. Trump will chair it for life, removable only by a unanimous vote. Notably, France, Spain, and Norway reviewed this charter in January and flatly declined to join, recognizing it as an attempt to bypass and supplant the United Nations. Their hesitation was not squeamishness; it was a basic reading of the text.

Where does Israel stand in this architecture? It sits outside the board, because it does not need a seat. Every phase of Palestinian disarmament is strictly tethered to an Israeli withdrawal controlled entirely by Tel Aviv, backed by Washington. Israel can accept these terms in theory while violating or reinterpreting them in practice, fully confident that the United States will shield it from consequences. This is the same military machine that has flattened much of Gaza, that faces an active genocide case at the International Court of Justice and ICC arrest warrants for its leadership, and that now acts as the gatekeeper for the entire peace process. Palestinians disarm on a rigid schedule; Israel withdraws at its absolute discretion.

The word carrying the heaviest ideological freight in Trump’s announcement is “technocratic.” It sounds like a welcome relief after catastrophe: competent management at last. But technocracy is a political tool designed to lift a fundamental question out of the realm of popular politics: who decides the future of this land and its people? Swap an elected government, however compromised, for a committee of appointed managers answering to a foreign board and Gaza doesn’t really get depoliticized leadership. Governance has simply moved into a closed room where no Palestinian holds a vote.

Defenders of the plan argue that the alternative is endless war, and that a rebuilt, disarmed Gaza justifies the loss of a political horizon. That trade deserves its proper name. Such stability is bought by sacrificing the future, and it is negotiated and executed on behalf of a population that was never consulted. According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, at least 1,100 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire ostensibly took effect on October 10, 2025. A population that has buried so many dead under a supposed truce has every reason to want the dying to end on almost any terms. That profound desperation is not consent; it is leverage, and the architects of this deal are exploiting it to the hilt.

Some will object that Hamas rule was never democratically chosen either, and that an appointed committee is no worse than a movement produced by years of political vacuum. That objection misses the entire design. The fundamental grievance is not Hamas versus a committee. Rather, Palestinians have not had a voice in either arrangement, while the latter makes disenfranchisement permanent by structural design. Weapons are a poor foundation for a nation, and Hamas’s arsenal brought Gaza nothing but ruin. But a people that disarms first, under foreign supervision, into a structure with no route to self-rule has surrendered the last card it could carry into a negotiation over its own destiny. The deal does not postpone Palestinian statehood; it dismantles the very mechanism by which statehood could ever be demanded.

Through this deal, Israel secures impunity. The board secures a working precedent— authorized under UN Security Council Resolution 2803—that a great power can administer a conquered population through a committee of its choosing. Gulf financiers secure a lucrative reconstruction project to shape. And the Palestinians secure quiet, a committee, and a permanent place beneath someone else’s board. Call the arrangement by many names, but do not call it a step toward a Palestinian state.


This article was originally published by Foreign Policy In Focus; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.Email

Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. He is a senior fellow at Foreign Policy In Focus.

 


Among many buzzwords in diplo-speak around Palestine is the support for “a demilitarized Palestinian state living side by side in peace next to Israel.” This condition is repeated so often that it goes unnoticed most of the time.

That premise, and its inherent injustice, dysfunctionality, and lack of pragmatism, was highlighted this week by no less an entity than Donald Trump’s Orwellian “Board of Peace.”

On August 1, the Board released the full text of its plan, outlining the latest scheme to create an actual ceasefire in Gaza, begin rebuilding, allow a Palestinian body of technocrats to start assuming some small authority in Gaza, and, above all, to disarm Palestinian armed groups.

It is worth noting, briefly, that such a plan should not have been necessary, since such a plan was supposed to be part of the so-called “ceasefire” that was declared in October 2025. 

This new plan was presented as the second stage of the October plan, ignoring the fact that Israel has not fulfilled any of its obligations in stage one, and in fact, has never stopped killing Palestinians and has gradually occupied more and more of Gaza, pushing the survivors ever closer to the sea.

Palestinian factions reportedly had some very difficult consultations regarding this latest plan. In the end, they decided to accept the plan and put the ball in Israel’s court.

The key to that acceptance was one particular clause in the agreement, which tied Palestinian disarmament to Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, to be accomplished in phases, and stated that the Palestinian weapons would not be destroyed but would be handed over to the Palestinian board of technocrats. 

Those conditions were in the Board’s plan. Article 8 described a “process to decommission and store heavy weapons, military production sites, depots of weapons, and tunnels, shall begin after completing the remaining commitments under Sharm Sheikh Protocol, the entry of NCAG and deployment of ISF.”

The NCAG is the proposed Palestinian technocratic board, and the ISF is the often-discussed “International Stabilization Force” that would handle security in Gaza. The “remaining conditions” that need to be fulfilled refer to Israel’s ongoing attacks on Palestinians and its advance beyond the so-called “Yellow Line,” which splits Gaza in two, with Israel occupying 53% of the territory. It has since advanced well beyond 60% and, by some estimates, is nearing control of 70% of the territory. 

The Board of Peace clause continues: “…This process shall be linked to an Israeli withdrawal, in phases, from the areas under its control in Gaza and the decommissioning of armed militias in accordance with article 10 of this Roadmap. …The Palestinian factions shall take part in this process, and no weapons shall be transferred or handed to Israel or non-Palestinian parties.”

There’s no ambiguity there. All weapons would be held by the Palestinian technocrats, and the handover of weapons was explicitly tied to Israel’s withdrawal, not just from ahead of the Yellow Line—which is immediately required—but, in gradual phases, from all of Gaza.

Hamas and the other Palestinian factions called the American and Israeli bluff by agreeing to this. And, if they expected that it was a bluff, they were proven right very quickly.

Despite the clear wording of the agreement that linked Israeli withdrawal to Palestinian disarmament, Israel refused to accept the agreement, which should have come as no surprise to anyone. Yet almost immediately, the chair of the Board, Nickolay Mladenov, met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Board sent out a “clarifying statement” which stated that Israel would only withdraw after the Palestinians had completely disarmed. 

This swift reversal didn’t merely confirm that the Board of Peace is nothing more than a tool for continuing the project of crushing the Palestinians; it doubled down on it.

Palestinian self-defense is the core of the issue

The Board of Peace is a Trump initiative, and there is no more reason to expect it will ever seriously consider Palestinian welfare than there is from any American, much less Israeli, idea. Yet the speed with which the Board reversed itself so completely raises a more fundamental question about international diplomacy on Palestine in general.

Diplomacy around Palestine continues to focus on a two-state solution, and while many advocates for Palestine rightly argue that the two-state solution is not viable, it is necessary to examine some of the assumptions that undergird this failed pursuit.

The formulation for two states has been expressed as two states for two people, with an Israeli state living side by side in peace with a demilitarized Palestinian state. The idea that a Palestinian state would not have the ability to defend itself was long assumed, but officially unstated until U.S. President Bill Clinton described a “non-militarized Palestinian state” in his Clinton Parameters of 2000

Clinton envisioned an international border force that would defend Palestinian borders and deter attack, but this was, of course, never realistic. What international force would actually repel an Israeli force if it decided to invade this hypothetical Palestinian state? The inability of UNIFIL to prevent Israeli infiltration in Southern Lebanon is a case in point. 

As time went on, all allusions to such an international force were simply forgotten. But the idea that a Palestinian state would be demilitarized has endured and become an essential part of the envisioned two-state framework. 

As we can see from the way the Board of Peace and the Trump administration are operating in Gaza, what this notion really means is that Israel and its allies will insist that Palestinians give up the means to resist Israel by force. 

Few ask what Palestinians think of that idea, but when the Palestinian polling firm The People Company for Polling and Social Research asked in June 2026, it found that only 20% of Palestinians accepted the idea of a demilitarized state.

Indeed, when asked about not just this condition, but the sort of package that the two-state solution usually includes (such as Palestinian refugees only being allowed to return to the Palestinian state, with only a token number returning to areas within Israel), 59% were opposed to it, even though 51% still said they were supportive of the idea of a two-state solution in general. 

But the issue is not the two-state solution itself; the real issue that has been exposed again in the past week is the idea that Palestinians, even in a post-genocide, post-occupation world, would be denied the right of self-defense. 

Of course, Palestinians reject this, but no one, even the ostensible Palestinian leadership in the quisling PLO, debates the issue in the diplomatic arena. The notion of a “demilitarized Palestinian state” is repeated often and rarely, if ever, challenged.

It is, in fact, debated even less frequently than the right of return, another condition that it is simply assumed Palestinians will relent on, an assumption made seemingly by everyone except Palestinians themselves, who seem never to be asked about it. 

But the right of return is so fundamental to Palestinian nationalism that many Palestinians have raised so loud a voice that it is more difficult to ignore, though much of the world still earnestly tries.

The issue of self-defense has been less prominent, in part because it is inherently associated with a two-state solution, so opposition to it is often subsumed under opposition to that solution in general. 

The question of the right to resist has become more prominent, however, since October 7, 2023. 

Right of self-defense

October 7 villainized Palestinian resistance even further than it had been in the minds not only of Israel and its western allies, but also in the Arab capitals that had been working to find ways to establish relations with Israel despite Israel’s refusal to compromise at all on its occupation. 

Rather than learn the obvious lesson that occupation and the denial of basic rights inevitably lead to horrific days like October 7, and to even more obscenely horrifying responses like the genocide that has followed, Israel used the event as further proof that Palestinians had to be disarmed. 

The cooperation in the Board of Peace process and the support not only from Europe but also from most of the Arab official leadership demonstrate the success of that effort. 

That is a powerful consensus that either supports or at least acquiesces to the idea that Palestinians must be unable to defend themselves. It goes beyond the argument that October 7 somehow proves that Palestinians are, stereotypically, “too brutal” to be trusted with weapons, even while the far more violent and murderous Israeli government and settlers are never challenged in their “right of self-defense,” no matter how often that “right” is used to aggressively murder innocent civilians.

No, this is a much broader argument that says that Palestinians are so inherently and uniquely violent that they can never truly govern themselves. Even the patronizing “pathway to a Palestinian state” is always conditioned on someone else having both authority and the means of enforcing it above the heads of the Palestinians. 

How can there possibly be any kind of Palestinian self-determination—regardless of whether that is in one state between the river and the sea, two states, a confederation, or any other arrangement—if Palestinians must trust that Israel, which has so brutally dominated, dispossessed, and denied rights to them for so long, will not decide to do so again?

Even before we consider the absurdity of claiming Palestinians must live next to or with their long-term oppressors in that state of naïve faith, there is the fact that self-determination is inseparable from the right and the ability to defend oneself against attack. 

If the vision was to create some sort of magical, pacified region where Israel could no longer pose a threat to the Palestinians, it would be reasonable to argue that Palestinians do likewise. Given the history and the nature of the real world, neither side of that equation is realistic.

Those among Hamas and the other Palestinian factions who argued for calling the American bluff and accepting the initial offer from the Board of Peace recognized all of this, and that is why they insisted that their weapons be handed over gradually and only to other Palestinians. It’s possible they wouldn’t have even agreed to that much if they expected Israel to accept the deal, but they took the risk because, even if Israel surprised them and cooperated with the Board, the Palestinians’ weaponry would remain in Palestinian hands.

That was and is the problem, and not only for Israel. When confronted with that objection, there was no effort to push back on it from the various “Board of Peace” tools of the Trump administration. That’s because Hamas had been correct: this was not about disarming them, which, under certain conditions, they could accept, albeit reluctantly. But this was about disarming Palestinians permanently, which neither Hamas nor most Palestinians will acquiesce to.

It is just one more example of how the Palestinians are expected to accept terms that no one else would ever be confronted with. And it is another example of how international diplomacy—whether originating in Washington, Brussels, or Riyadh—remains in a hopeless quagmire of its own making, endlessly proposing new ways to dehumanize the Palestinians rather than trying to help chart a path to a better future for everyone between the river and the sea. 


This article was originally published by Mondoweiss; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.


 

Researchers show how malicious SIM cards can hijack smartphones, EV chargers and connected devices




University of Birmingham






EMBARGOED COPY OF THE RESEARCH PAPER AVAILABLE ON REQUEST

Subscriber Identity Modules (SIMs), the secure element used to connect devices to a mobile network, can pose severe security risks when compromised. A malicious SIM could allow attackers to gather information about a device, interfere with its connectivity, and serve as entry point for further cyberattacks.

Presenting their findings at the 2026 USENIX WOOT Conference on Offensive Technologies, in Baltimore, University of Birmingham researchers reveal a new attack surface exposed to malicious and compromised SIMs.

A feature known as Proactive SIM allows a SIM card to send a limited number of special commands directly to a device's modem. One of them allows the SIM to request the execution of so-called AT commands – the same type of commands used to control and configure modems since the 1980’s.

Tomasz Piotr Lisowski and Dr Marius Muench worked with Kristian Covic, from IT security company Fuzzware, to develop the CATana toolkit to explore the dangers of SIM-originating AT commands across different devices.

The researchers investigated 26 representative devices: 18 smartphones and eight cellular-connected IoT modules, including modules commonly embedded in electric vehicle chargers, industrial equipment, and connected cars. Devices studied were not limited to any single manufacturer or operating system.

After identifying that several analysed devices would execute SIM-originating AT commands, the researchers used CATana to demonstrate the threats of the resulting SIM AT interface, leading to the discovery of multiple security vulnerabilities. Example attacks enabled by the presence of a SIM AT interface include:

  • Re-enabling closed-down debug interfaces
  • Exfiltrating sensitive information, such as a device’s unique identifier
  • Sending messages or initiating calls
  • Obtaining arbitrary command execution capabilities on a victim’s communication processor
  • Forcing a device to downgrade from secure 4G connectivity to older and less secure 2G networks
  • Shutting down the victim device; and
  • Disabling cellular communications altogether.

Dr Marius Muench, Assistant Professor in Computer Science at the University of Birmingham, said: “The fascinating part here is that the proactive capabilities of a SIM and the resulting attack surface is explicitly defined in the technical specifications for cellular communication, resulting into ‘specification-compliant’ attacks.”

“Other researchers, cybersecurity experts, and leaked intelligence documents have shown some of the dangers of hostile SIMs before us. Yet, the resulting risks have not been fully mitigated. Potentially, this is because hostile SIMs are not included in most threat models; although we slowly see a promising shift here.”

Building on their earlier work, the research team highlights four attacker scenarios leading to malicious or compromised SIMs and eSIMs, supported with precedents from real-world incidents:

  • Remote attackers exploiting vulnerabilities in SIM software;
  • Physical attackers replacing a victim’s SIM card or installing a hardware implant
  • Compromised operators abusing remote SIM management features; and
  • Supply-chain attackers modifying SIMs during manufacturing or distribution.

The researchers point out that the risks of SIM-originating AT commands are especially relevant for IoT devices such as industrial equipment, vehicle systems, or routers, as these are often locked down with only a limited number of exposed interfaces. The presence of a SIM AT interface could, therefore, serve as unforeseen entry vector for further compromising the victim device.

The study also comments on the more general risk of proactive SIMs, which can turn victim devices into surveillance tools. During the work building up to the publication, the researchers discovered that, on recent Android devices, a malicious SIM could force the phone to open an attacker-controlled website without any user interaction, even when the phone was locked.

The researchers argue that many proactive SIM features are legacy technologies that were built only with benign SIMs in mind. However, as technology and threat surface is evolving, many features are no longer needed and create unnecessary security risks.

Kristian Covic said: “At Fuzzware, we are very happy that we could support this research project. Hostile SIMs are an overlooked attack vector, and it's great that we could show this with our work."

The researchers did not stop at solely finding the vulnerabilities. They also reached out to the GSM Association (GSMA), as well as affected chip- and device manufacturers to address the found the issues.

Dr Muench reflects: “It was great working together with the affected companies and GSMA. Our reports were treated seriously, and key manufacturers make software updates and hardened configurations available to their customers. This will benefit billions of future SIM-enabled devices operating worldwide, including smartphones, connected vehicles, payment terminals, routers, critical infrastructure and EV charging systems.”

Asked about future research, Tomasz Piotr Lisowski said: “The attacks we found only scratch the surface of what is possible with hostile SIM cards. We will keep working on bringing more of the attack surface to the public light and hope to cooperate with vendors and standardization bodies to remedy the risks in today’s and future devices.”

The issues identified by the researchers as part of their study are tracked under CVE-2025-48618, CVE-2026-57550, and CVD-2026-0122.

ENDS


CATANA: On the Dangers of SIM-Originating AT Commands’ - Tomasz Piotr Lisowski, Kristian Covic, and Marius Muench is published under Open Access after presentation at USENIX WOOT.

Notes for editors

  • The University of Birmingham is ranked amongst the world’s top 100 institutions. Its work brings people from across the world to Birmingham, including researchers, teachers and more than 40,000 students from over 150 countries.
  • England’s first civic university, the University of Birmingham is proud to be rooted in one of the most dynamic and diverse cities in the country. A member of the Russell Group and a founding member of the Universitas 21 global network of research universities, the University of Birmingham has been changing the way the world works for more than a century.