An explosion at the al Ahli hospital in Gaza on Tuesday killed many – officials linked to Hamas said up to 471 were killed.
This latest round of fighting has inflamed anger and violence well beyond the confines of the Israel/Hamas conflict.
The Israelis insist they have evidence which suggests that the damage was not inflicted by them, but instead by a misfired rocket by Hamas ally Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
That is not believed in the Arab world, most of whom say they want to see an independent investigation into what happened.
Regardless, “the first casualty of war is the truth” – so what prospect is there of stopping this current spiral of violence to avoid a significantly wider regional conflict?
Whether attributed to US politician Senator Hiram Warren Johnson in 1918; Dr Samuel Johnson in 1758, or even the ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus around 550 BC, the quote about the truth being the first casualty of war would appear as true today as in Aeschylus’ time.
More on Israel
Related Topics:
Despite the horrific and despicable events committed by Hamas on Israel on 7 October, it suits Hamas to frame the current conflict as one between Arab and Western ideals, and nothing appears off-limits.
And it has worked.
Violence has erupted all over the region in protest at Israel’s actions.
Even Jordan’s foreign minister has made clear that “no one is buying” the Israeli narrative about the Gaza hospital explosion.
Image: A wounded baby in al Ahli hospital in Gaza
Image: A member of the media walks in the area of the hospital
The West, and indeed most of the world, tolerates a wide range of religious beliefs in its population provided that the shared values of the nation endure.
However, having been responsible for creating the Jewish state of Israel, in the middle of an Arab region – which supplanted the resident Palestinian population at the time, the West has more than a degree of responsibility for solving the ensuing problems.
All sides know there is no military solution, yet in the absence of a political determination to chart a course for peace, the politicians take the easy route, hide behind inflamed rhetoric, and the casualties mount.
Image: People clash with security forces during a protest near the US embassy in Awkar, Lebanon, after the explosion at al Ahli hospital
Image: A man holds a Palestinian flag during a protest in Turkey after the hospital blast
Military action should be the route of last resort – and only then if it offers a clear objective. Instead, each side seems determined to inflict growing levels of violence, destruction and pain on each other, which makes the path to peace even more challenging.
Every country is entitled to protect its people – indeed, it is a priority.
However, in the current conflict, a perpetuation of the violence makes future conflict more – not less – likely.
So, the politicians involved are making matters worse, not better. Real political strength is not the ability to inflame, antagonise and incite – that might play to the crowd, but it is a negligent folly.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Instead, great statesmanship is walking the hard road, of working tirelessly to get beyond the anger, to understand your adversary’s position, to seek compromise, understanding and accommodation.
This is no idealistic dream, this is the harsh reality that without supreme efforts, violence risks spiralling out of control. And, for normal Palestinians and Israelis, nobody wins.
The conflict in Israel is a direct result of a failure of politics and diplomacy.
Periodically, events attract the interest of international politicians, who then seek to apply a “quick fix” by focusing on the “symptoms” of the problem – such as now with the humanitarian crisis and hostage situation – and a few deftly placed sticky plasters are applied.
Image: US President Joe Biden is welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a visit to Tel Aviv
Image: Rishi Sunak meets Mr Netanyahu in Israel. Pic: No 10 Downing Street
But the central disease endures, conveniently dormant but unresolved, until circumstances dictate, and the violence erupts again.
Occasionally, leaders can look beyond their own polarised view, swallow their pride and engage in slow but meaningful progress.
Yasser Arafat was the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from 1969 to 2004, but gradually shifted his approach from open conflict with the Israelis and instead engaged in a series of negotiations with the Israeli government to end the conflict between it and the PLO.
These included the Madrid Conference of 1991, the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2000 Camp David Summit.
The success of the negotiations in Oslo led to Arafat being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, alongside Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, in 1994.
Image: From left, Shimon Peres, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin
And, despite Arafat being a polarising figure, progress was made. Following his demise, who was prepared to build on those foundations – from either side?
Who, on either side, is prepared to make such brave and potentially unpopular steps today?
Politicians are supposed to speak for their people rather than pursue firebrand rhetoric, and all are aware that there is no military solution to the Israel/Palestine/Hamas issue.
Normal Palestinians and Israeli families cannot want the current conflict to continue, to blight their lives and that of the next generation.
Image: Palestinians gather around residential buildings destroyed in Israeli strikes in Zahra City in southern Gaza City
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:07
Hamas ‘livestreamed’ my cousin’s murder
As a former military officer, we had to have faith in our political masters, that they would explore every avenue available before committing their military to war – with all that war entails.
Can that test be passed today? In the absence of true political leadership, the violence continues – taking sides does not help, it simply hardens resolve.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Each side blames the other, third party proxies fuel the hatred, and in the tsunami of casualties and anger, the truth becomes hard to find.
What a sad indictment on the apparent power of democracy that we know the path to peace, but systematically avoid taking such brave and difficult steps.
Donald Trump could meet Vladimir Putin in person as early as next week to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine, a White House official has said.
They said the meeting would be conditional on the Russian president meeting his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Sky News’s US partner network NBC News reported.
It came days before the White House’s deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or face severe economic penalties, which could also target countries buying its oil.
Asked during a news conference at the White House if the talks would take place, Mr Trump said: “There’s a very good prospect that they will.”
He said it had not been determined where the talks would take place, but added: “We had some very good talks with President Putin today.”
However, he said: “I’ve been disappointed before with this one.”
Asked if Mr Putin made any kind of concession to lead to the development, Mr Trump did not give much away, but added: “We’ve been working on this a long time. There are thousands of young people dying, mostly soldiers, but also, you know, missiles being hit into Kyiv and other places.”
Trump might finally be a step closer to ending the war
Seven hours is a long time in US politics.
At 10am, Donald Trump accused Russia of posing a threat to America’s national security.
At 5pm, Trump said there was a “good prospect” of him meeting Vladimir Putin “soon”.
There had, he claimed, been “great progress” in talks between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian president.
It’s difficult to gauge the chances of a meeting between the two leaders without knowing what “great progress” means.
Is Russia “inclined” towards agreeing a ceasefire, as Ukraine’s president now claims?
Is Putin prepared to meet with his Ukrainian foe Volodymyr Zelenskyy, too?
The very fact that we’re asking those questions suggests something shifted on a day when there was no expectation of breakthrough.
Trump repeatedly vowed to end the war within 24 hours of becoming president.
On day 198 of his presidency, he might, just might, be one step closer to achieving that.
More tariffs ‘could happen’
Mr Trump also said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25% he announced on India over its purchases of Russian oil.
“Could happen,” he said, after saying he expected to announce more secondary sanctions intended to pressure Russia into ending its war with Ukraine.
Earlier, he imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, on top of a previous 25% tariff, over its continued purchases of Russian oil.
India’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the additional tariffs were “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable”.
Image: Vladimir Putin welcomes Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow. Pic: Sputnik/Reuters
It came after Mr Putin held talks with Mr Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, with the meeting lasting around three hours.
In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump said Mr Witkoff “had a highly productive meeting” with Mr Putin in which “great progress was made”.
He said he had updated America’s European allies, and they will work towards an end to the Russia-Ukraine war “in the days and weeks to come”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:11
Correspondents in Washington and Moscow break down a busy day of diplomacy
‘The war must end’
Mr Zelenskyy later said he and Mr Trump spoke on the phone after the meeting. He said “European leaders also participated in the conversation” and “we discussed what was said in Moscow”.
He added: “Our common position with our partners is absolutely clear: The war must end. We all need lasting and reliable peace. Russia must end the war that it started.”
Mr Zelenskyy later said: “It seems that Russia is now more inclined to agree to a ceasefire.”
He added that the pressure on Moscow “is working”, without elaborating, and stressed it was important to make sure Russia does not “deceive us or the United States” when it comes to “the details” of a potential agreement.
Ghana’s defence and environment ministers are among eight killed when a military helicopter crashed, the government has said.
The West African country’s military said the helicopter took off in the morning from the capital Accra and was heading northwest into the interior to the town of Obuasi when it went off the radar.
Footage of the crash site shows debris on fire in a forest as people circle around to help.
The cause of the crash was not immediately known. The military said an investigation was under way.
Defence minister Edward Omane Boamah and environment minister Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed were killed, along with the vice-chair of the National Democratic Congress ruling party, a top national security adviser and the helicopter’s three crew members.
NASA is accelerating plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon, and they claim it could happen by 2030.
In a directive – a written or oral instruction issued by the US government – to NASAstaff earlier this month, Sean Duffy, US transport secretary and the new interim administrator of the space agency, said it should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years.
Plans to get a reactor on the lunar surface are not new. The NASA website states the space agency is working on the Fission Surface Power Project to create a system capable of generating at least 40 kilowatts of power – but that is less than half of what Mr Duffy has now proposed.
He also stressed the importance of America’s space agency deploying the technology before China and Russia.
“To properly advance this critical technology, to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,” the directive, which was first reported on by Politico, states.
Image: Sean Duffy says NASA should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years. Pic: Reuters
A nuclear reactor on the moon would be considered a key step towards building a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface.
But Mr Duffy warned that the first country to deploy a reactor “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” which he said could significantly inhibit NASA’s Artemis mission – the lunar exploration programme which aims to land astronauts back on the moon in 2027.
When quizzed about the plan on 5 August, he told reporters: “We’re in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon. And to have a base on the moon, we need energy.”
Why use a nuclear reactor?
Unlike solar power, which is used on the International Space Station, a small nuclear reactor can operate continuously, Dr Sungwoo Lim, a senior lecturer in space applications, exploration and instrumentation at the University of Surrey told Sky News.
This is critical for infrastructure on the moon, which spends two weeks in complete darkness as it slowly orbits the Earth.
Nuclear reactors therefore diminish the need for sunlight, and can be used to power life support, communications and other critical science instruments, even in darkness.
Image: An artist impression of a nuclear reactor on the moon. Pic: NASA
“In practice, this means astronauts could use a reactor to establish sustainable bases and extend exploration to places where solar energy is impractical,” Dr Lim adds, including in the moon’s permanently shadowed region, where scientists believe ice water exists.
Professor Mike Fitzpatrick, an expert in nuclear technology at Coventry University, adds that the proposal of a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor, is relatively small compared to most that are built on Earth.
To put it in real terms, it takes around three kilowatts to power the kettle in your home.
But Prof Fitzpatrick says a smaller reactor could pose as “demonstrator technology”, something small and compact that makes it easier to transport it to the moon.
“Then you can have a whole array of them,” he says.
So, what’s the catch?
While scientists agree that nuclear energy seems like the necessary way to make progress on the moon, Prof Fitzpatrick says questions still remain about safety.
“Shipping the fuel to the moon is relatively safe, because at that point it is not particularly toxic, it is the highly reactive fission products that become the issue,” he says.
“What’s going to be the strategy for long-term storage and disposal on the moon after these plants have operated for certain periods of time? The sooner those conversations are had, and you have international consensus, the less likely it is you’ll get future friction.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:55
Four astronauts launch to ISS after delay
Dr Lim also questioned Mr Duffy’s timescale of 2030, saying meeting the target depends heavily on the space agency’s budget.
NASA’s future funding is currently unknown after Donald Trump’s 2026 budget request sought a cut of $6bn (£4.5bn) and the termination of dozens of science programs and missions.
Over 2,000 agency employees are also set to voluntarily leave NASA in the coming months under the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” programme.
Is this the new space race?
Last year, Russia’s space agency Roscosmos said it was planning to build a lunar nuclear reactor alongside China’s National Space Administration by 2035, in order to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS).
The collaboration was never formally announced by China but the joint plan was included in a presentation by Chinese officials in April this year, which outlined the 2028 Chang’e-8 lunar mission which aims to lay the groundwork for the ILRS.
“Duffy explicitly described it as a competition,” says Dr Lim, adding that the move towards lunar exploration signals a renewed moon or space race among major parties like China, Russia, India and the US to claim strategic lunar territory and technology.
However, Rossana Deplano a professor of international space law at the University of Leicester, says there is a lot of misunderstanding around “keep out” or safety zones, which Mr Duffy’s directive mentions.
“Safety zones are explicitly recognised in the Artemis Accords,” she says.
“They are a notification and consultation zone to be declared in advance in order to avoid harmful interference.
“They must be temporary in nature and do not establish state jurisdiction, e.g. they cannot be enforced.”