As the sun beats down on us near Kibbutz Be’eri in Israel, Avi looks out towards the place he really wants to live. It’s only two miles away and it shimmers in the sunshine.
“It would be our privilege,” he says, looking at his wife and three small children.
Their plan is to move to Gaza.
He’s not sure when it will be possible, but he’s hoping it will be soon, once it is safe to move in.
As if on cue, there is a boom as another shell is fired into Gaza from a nearby gun emplacement.
Avi is not alone.
Around us are dozens and dozens of Israelis who are keen to get into Gaza and claim the land as their own.
More on Israel
Related Topics:
They have come to a conference on the resettlement of Gaza in Kibbutz Be’eri as a show of strength and determination. Many of them are couples with children.
There is a tent where the youngsters are being entertained, a stall handing out drinks and a stage with speeches and music. People are making small talk in the shade of a pagoda.
There are lots of guns here, and the atmosphere is rich with a sense of frustration, entitlement and even excitement.
Reshit has come with her friends. She is the daughter of an Israeli soldier who spent months in Gaza and is now fighting in Lebanon. She is friendly, open, eloquent and utterly sure of herself.
So why would you want to live in Gaza?
Image: Israelis waves flags as a conference is held on the resettlement of Gaza
“Because it’s our homeland,” she replies. “It says in the Torah that this is our home, this is our land, and we have every right to live there.
“So many soldiers have died in this. We have to keep doing what they started. They died for a reason. They started something. And I think it’s our duty for them and for their families to actually keep doing what they started.
“They sacrificed themselves for something so we have to sacrifice ourselves for that thing also.”
What, I ask, about the Palestinians who already live in Gaza? What should happen to them? She doesn’t miss a beat.
“We should kill them, every last one of them. And if the government won’t do that then we should just kick them out. This is our land. And we deserve it.”
Mass murder is not proposed by the other people we meet, at least not while talking to us, but the idea that the Palestinians should forego their land and be sent to other nations seems commonplace.
“Throughout history, countries who lose wars then lose their land,” I was told by a man called Boris, who says he is an activist for Likud, the political party of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Until recently, the idea of sending settlers into Gaza had very few supporters – a fringe proposal with almost no momentum.
Now right-wing politicians have jumped behind it with gusto as a growing sign of their determination not simply to beat Hamas, but to change the region.
Image: Smoke rises from Gaza as seen from southern Israel. Pic: Reuters
And so, along with the would-be settlers, there are politicians here, lending their weight.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, the outspoken minister of national security, turns up to lend his support, agreeing that Palestinians should be removed from Gaza.
Another VIP visitor is Ariel Kallner, an MP for Likud, who tells me that he is here to show his support for the settlers’ plans.
He insists that “total victory” in the war can only be achieved when settlers have set up a town in northern Gaza. In the distance, smoke rises over Gaza.
In a large tent to the side, a loudspeaker bursts into life.
Daniella Weiss takes to the stage to applause. Now a sprightly 79 years old, she has spent half a century encouraging settlers to set up communities in the West Bank.
She claims to have established more than 330 settlements and now, her focus is on Gaza.
“You know, it wasn’t easy. We have accumulated a lot of experience about how to do it politically, how to work with the politicians, how to work with the public, and how to encourage the pioneers to be able to settle in a place that is their land, but is also a difficult place to live in,” she says. “We can teach them how to cope.”
Image: Sky’s Adam Parsons speaks with Daniella Weiss
There is another commotion, this time in the neighbouring field. Counter-demonstrators have turned up and a line of police officers is separating them from the settlers. They’re chanting their opposition and waving banners.
Mickal Frucktman bristles with anger. She says she was shocked to see Likud politicians at the event because “I think that means the government supports this idea”.
“What they want to do is illegal and it’s going to cause incredible problems. It’s going to totally ruin Israel morally, if there’s any moral shred left. And there are still 101 hostages being held.”
She looks at the settlers; they look back. It’s hard to imagine any common ground between these two camps, any fellow feeling.
And from somewhere near, there is a boom as another shell is launched into Gaza.
Ukraine has confirmed for the first time that its troops have entered the neighbouring Russian region of Belgorod.
Ukrainian forces have also been fighting in parts of Russia’s Kursk region, eight months after a cross-border incursion, although Russia has recaptured lost territory there.
On Tuesday, Russia’s defence ministry said it intercepted and destroyed 23 Ukrainian drones overnight over the Kursk and Belgorod regions.
In his nightly video address, posted on X, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyyconfirmed for the first time his troops have been active in Russia’s Belgorod region as they seek to protect Ukrainian towns near the border.
He said Ukraine’s top commander, Oleksandr Syrskyi, had reported “on the situation at the front, including our presence in the Kursk and Belgorod regions”.
“We continue to carry out active operations in the border areas on enemy territory, and this is just – war must return to where it came from,” he said.
“The main objective remains the same: to protect our land and our communities in Sumy and Kharkiv regions as much as possible from the Russian occupier.”
X
This content is provided by X, 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 X 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 X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Last month he referred to “certain steps” undertaken by Ukraine’s military in Russia “a little below the Kursk region” – suggesting a presence in the Belgorod region.
While it is the first official confirmation by Ukraine of its troops in Belgorod, Russian military bloggers had reported battles there in recent days.
Mr Zelenskyy also said that despite Russia’s recapture of areas of Kursk in recent weeks, the operation had a specific purpose.
“Thanks to the entire Kursk operation – we have managed to ease the pressure on other parts of the front, particularly in Donetsk region. It is absolutely crucial to keep destroying Russian equipment and all logistics used by the occupiers,” he said.
Image: Ukraine now says its troops are operating in Russia’s Belgorod region, as well as Kursk
On Monday, Mr Zelenskyy’s hometown held funerals for some of the 20 people, including nine children, killed by a Russian missile which hit apartment buildings and a playground.
More than 70 people were also wounded in the attack on Friday night on Kryvyi Rih.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Russian forces mounted several attacks on villages around the eastern Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk, according to Ukrainian military officials posting on Telegram on Monday.
They have for months been attempting to encircle the city, an important logistics hub, but Ukrainian resistance has slowed the Russian advances in the area.
Donald Trump is trying to broker a temporary ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine.
But the fighting has continued, and it remains unclear whether the US will maintain its military support for Ukraine.
Donald Trump has said the US is having direct talks with Iran over its nuclear programme – stating Iran will be in “great danger” if the negotiations fail.
The president has insisted Tehran cannot get nuclear weapons.
But Iran almost immediately contradicted the president insisting the talks due to take place in Oman on Saturday would be conducted through an intermediary.
Iran had pushed back against the US president’s demand that it enter negotiations over its nuclear programme or be bombed, but speaking at the White House on Monday, Mr Trump said: “We’re having direct talks with Iran, and they’ve started.
“It’ll go on Saturday,” he continued. “We have a very big meeting, and we’ll see what can happen. And I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable.”
Image: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei visits nuclear centrifuges in Tehran. Pic: Reuters
When pressed for more details on the talks, the US president said they are taking place “at almost the highest level”, without specifying who would take part or where they would be held.
“Hopefully those talks will be successful, it would be in Iran’s best interests if they are successful,” he said. “We hope that’s going to happen.
Speaking in the Oval Office on Monday, Mr Trump said Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon, and if the talks aren’t successful, I actually think it will be a very bad day for Iran”.
However, Mr Trump’s bullish comments were not matched by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X that indirect high-level talks would be held in Oman, adding: “It is as much an opportunity as it is a test. The ball is in America’s court.”
Image: Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Pic: Reuters
On Tuesday, Iran’s state media said the talks would be led by Mr Araghchi and US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff, with Oman’s foreign minister, Badr al Busaidi, acting as intermediary.
Mr Trump’s previous warnings of possible military action against Iran heightened already tense nerves across the Middle East.
He has said he would prefer a deal over military confrontation and in March wrote to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to suggest talks. Iranian officials at the time said Tehran would not be bullied into negotiations.
Mr Netanyahu had to sit there, listen and accept it
It now seems clear why the Israelis were summoned to the White House at short notice.
The US and Iran will sit down together to directly negotiate a nuclear deal in a matter of days.
Mr Trump didn’t say who would be taking part in the talks but said it would be “almost at the highest level”.
He wouldn’t reveal the location, and he didn’t put a timeline on it, but Washington and Tehran in close dialogue is a major development in Middle East geopolitics.
Benjamin Netanyahu had to sit there, listen and accept it.
By doing it publicly, in the Oval Office, Mr Trump has asserted his power and effectively forced the Israeli prime minister to accept the outcome.
Iran is yet to respond publicly, and it’s not clear what role Britain and France might play, as nuclear states and permanent members of the UN Security Council. Maybe none at all.
Mr Trump said Iran would be “in great danger” if the talks failed, but stopped short of explicitly saying he would order military action.
Mr Trump wants a deal, Israel will not be at the table and Mr Netanyahu’s ability to influence the talks, if he doesn’t like the way they are going, will be limited.
Some in Israeli media are describing the meeting as a humiliation for the prime minister and I suspect Mr Netanyahu will have left the White House concerned and possibly angry by what he heard.
But Mr Netanyahu has long shown an ability to force himself into the conversation – he won’t sit by and watch the talks progress without finding a way to have his say.
Image: Mr Trump welcoming Mr Netanyahu to the White House. Pic: AP
Direct talks would not occur without the explicit approval of Iran’s supreme leader, who said in February that negotiations with the US were “not smart, wise, or honourable”.
During his first White House term, Mr Trump withdrew the US from a deal between Iran and world powers designed to curb Iran’s nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief.
He also reimposed US sanctions.
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.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s White House visit – his second in just over two months – was also due to include a news conference but this was cancelled earlier on Monday.
Officials said the decision was made because the Israeli prime minister and Mr Trump had “two back-to-back media availabilities (the greeting in the Oval Office and the formal news conference), and they wanted to streamline things”.
The Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) has demanded an independent investigation into the “atrocious” deaths of 15 aid workers killed by Israeli troops in Gaza in March.
The group’s president, Dr Younis al Khatib, said he had asked the UN Security Council to form an investigation committee into the “intentional killing of the medics”.
In response to Sky’s Alistair Bunkall, spokesman David Mencer claimed the killings were the result of Hamas hiding among civilians and using them as human shields.
But speaking in Ramallah, Dr al Khatib said those responsible must be held “accountable for these crimes” via international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention.
“It’s not enough to comfort us with condolences and nice words of investigation and accountability. There has to be action taken,” he added.
He urged an “independent and thorough investigation of this atrocious crime” and that “no one should be above the law”.
“So many questions being asked of the Israelis,” he said.
More on Gaza
Related Topics:
“Why were they killed? Why did you destroy the ambulances after killing them? Why did you try to dig deep and hide the ambulances? They have to answer for that.”
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said on Monday that a preliminary inquiry into the shooting “indicated the troops opened fire due to a perceived threat following a previous encounter in the area”.
The IDF added that “six of the individuals killed in the incident were identified as Hamas terrorists”.
It comes after footage at the weekend showed the moment the aid workers were killed, with ambulances and fire insignia clearly visible and red lights flashing.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:10
Phone footage contradicts Israeli claims of killing of Gaza medics
The paramedic filming, later found with a bullet in his head, is heard saying there are Israelis present and reciting a declaration of faith often used before someone dies.
He adds: “Forgive me, mother, this is the path I chose mother, to help people, forgive me, mother, I swear I chose this path only to help people.”
The Israeli military originally claimed the vehicles – which were travelling north of Rafah on 23 March – didn’t have headlights or emergency signals on and were targeted as they looked “suspicious”.
An IDF investigation is ongoing, but an Israeli government spokesman claimed on Monday that “six Hamas terrorists” were among those killed.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:52
‘Demands’ for medic death investigation
Still many unanswered questions
It’s now more than two weeks since 15 medics were shot dead by Israeli forces in southern Gaza and there are still many unanswered questions.
Israel initially said that the medics had been fired upon because they were behaving suspiciously and travelling without lights on.
When footage emerged at the weekend contradicting that, and showing that the vehicles were clearly marked as ambulances, the IDF released a new statement admitting that their soldiers made a mistake.
For the first time since that video was made public, Sky News was able to put a series of questions to Israeli government spokesman David Mencer about the incident.
We asked what evidence the IDF have that six of the medics killed were in fact Hamas operatives, whether they will put any of their evidence into the public domain, and whether any of the soldiers involved in the incident had been withdrawn from operational duties in Gaza until their investigation is complete.
Mr Mencer did not answer those important questions directly but told an online briefing that Hamas use ambulances to travel around Gaza, and insisted six of those killed were Hamas terrorists, without providing any new evidence, and accused the international media of readily accepting Hamas’ version of events.
However, this version of events in fact came from United Nations bodies and the Palestinian Red Crescent, reputed organisations with people on the ground in Gaza itself.
The fact that Israel has already had to dramatically change its story once is why questions will remain until they provide the evidence to back up their latest version of what happened near Rafah around dawn on 23 March.
Mr Mencer said: “IDF soldiers opened fire at a distance at vehicles moving suspiciously in their direction.
“Among the dead were six Hamas terrorists – what were Hamas terrorists doing in ambulances? The incident was reported in real time to UN officials.”
He claimed there were “many documented occasions” when Hamas had used ambulances as cover.
An evacuation order was also in place at the time, which meant moving vehicles were prohibited, according to Israel.
The head of the UN’s humanitarian affairs office, Jonathan Whittall, said the 15 people were found in a “mass grave” in the sand.
He said those killed comprised eight members of the PRCS, six civil defence members and one UN employee.
Dylan Winder, from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), said it was “outraged at the deaths” and that “even in the most complex conflict zones, there are rules”.
“They were humanitarians. They wore emblems that should have been protected. Their ambulances were clearly marked, and they should have returned to their families. They did not,” he said.